Libertarianism is on the left!

[BillKauffman]

John-

Is this some type of strawman argument?

Modern mutualists like Carson believe in a "subjectivized" labor theory of value holding that the price of a good tends to correspond to the subjective disutility of the labor needed to produce it - – since a higher price would be whittled away by competition while at a lower price the good would not be produced at all.

[BillKauffman]

He advocated that aforementioned idea as part of the "first use" principle, which is almost universally considered the basis for property Rights in everything.  The principle was meant to apply only to that which was unowned, in its "State of Nature."  Once that "thing" was taken out of this State of Nature, the principle no longerapplied, as it was thus owned

You are conveniently forgetting about his "provisos".

[jaqeboy]

By the way, the editor of ALLiance says: Thanks for your interest and please remember that this is a test release! I need your comments. Please send them to chris (at) chrislempa dot info

[BillKauffman]

He advocated that aforementioned idea as part of the "first use" principle, which is almost universally considered the basis for property Rights in everything.  The principle was meant to apply only to that which was unowned, in its "State of Nature."  Once that "thing" was taken out of this State of Nature, the principle no longerapplied, as it was thus owned

You are conveniently forgetting about his "provisos".

Locke also didn't believe that things in a "state of nature" were "unowned". He specifically said they were owned in common.

from Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government - quote:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this, nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature bath provided and left it in, he bath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it bath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

[John Edward Mercier]

John-

Is this some type of strawman argument?

Modern mutualists like Carson believe in a "subjectivized" labor theory of value holding that the price of a good tends to correspond to the subjective disutility of the labor needed to produce it - – since a higher price would be whittled away by competition while at a lower price the good would not be produced at all.

In a way... because the GOOD is the capital.

If you produce a shovel, but not for sale. Its is stored labor -capital.
There is stored labor -capital, current labor -currency, and future labor -credit built into the system.
The term capitalism could have just as easily been laborism or something else.
But mutualism is the underlying system... where in each of the stored, current, and future are relatively equal (obviously my skill or productivity could improve with experience). Its effectively hidden by the artificial systems placed upon it (i.e. taxation, tender, etc).

As for Locke, I believe he made a detour of logic. His theory of Natural Rights and Common Property spring from a Creator, that places human above other components of nature... but fails to prove such a Creator actually exists. If no such Creator exists, and Man springs only from nature... then Man is merely part and parcel of nature.
Alex is correct that Locke was a byproduct of his time, and most likely fell into the trap of Divine Right made by sovereigns of his day.

[jaqeboy]

What this guys says:

[youtube]C3XtEWufGWs[/youtube]

[jeremy2141]

The book, The 5000 Year Leap, has a neat chapter about the left/right argument.  The founders didn't have our concept of left/right.  In their day, left was all government, right was no government.  This would make me a right wing extremist.  If you look at today's parties, both the republicans and democrats are lefties according to this standard.  Far right wing republicans (fascists) that want to control your personal moral life and are just as much part of a police state as the democrat that want's to make you wear a seat belt or tax you into poverty to give that tax money away to someone else.  Fascism and Communism/Collectivism are both far left, neither one represents the idea that government is here to "secure the blessings of Liberty".  Today we've turned the argument into Political Parties not political power.

[jaqeboy]

The book, The 5000 Year Leap, has a neat chapter about the left/right argument.  The founders didn't have our concept of left/right....

As I understand it, the founders of the federal government named United States of America pre-dated the "left-right" nomenclature, since that came from the French Assembly. See this Wikipedia discussion of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_right_in_politics/

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 [ ie, a couple of years after the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America ], when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[8] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal and clerical interests, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.[1] At that time, support for socialism and liberalism were regarded as being on the left. The earlier "left-wing" politicians were advocates of laissez faire capitalism[citation needed] and the "right-wing" politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of socialism.

This is the sense in which I'm using the terms. I think you are using the bastardized, confusing and irreconcilable sense of the terms.

[John Edward Mercier]

The book, The 5000 Year Leap, has a neat chapter about the left/right argument.  The founders didn't have our concept of left/right.  In their day, left was all government, right was no government.  This would make me a right wing extremist.  If you look at today's parties, both the republicans and democrats are lefties according to this standard.  Far right wing republicans (fascists) that want to control your personal moral life and are just as much part of a police state as the democrat that want's to make you wear a seat belt or tax you into poverty to give that tax money away to someone else.  Fascism and Communism/Collectivism are both far left, neither one represents the idea that government is here to "secure the blessings of Liberty".  Today we've turned the argument into Political Parties not political power.

That is merely the extremes of the modern politics...
Jefferson. the father of the Democratic Party, would be considered to the Left due to his affiliation with the Democratic Party. But would not be happy with its current policies... after all he was an anti-federalist (not as strong as Patrick Henry from which the NH motto actual was paraphrased by John Stark... but anti-federalist none-the-less).

[BillKauffman]

The book, The 5000 Year Leap, has a neat chapter about the left/right argument.  The founders didn't have our concept of left/right.  In their day, left was all government, right was no government.  This would make me a right wing extremist.  If you look at today's parties, both the republicans and democrats are lefties according to this standard.  Far right wing republicans (fascists) that want to control your personal moral life and are just as much part of a police state as the democrat that want's to make you wear a seat belt or tax you into poverty to give that tax money away to someone else.  Fascism and Communism/Collectivism are both far left, neither one represents the idea that government is here to "secure the blessings of Liberty".  Today we've turned the argument into Political Parties not political power.

That is merely the extremes of the modern politics...
Jefferson. the father of the Democratic Party, would be considered to the Left due to his affiliation with the Democratic Party. But would not be happy with its current policies... after all he was an anti-federalist (not as strong as Patrick Henry from which the NH motto actual was paraphrased by John Stark... but anti-federalist none-the-less).

TJ was a "Democratic-Republican" and against privilege which puts on the left via the French understanding as jack has pointed out.

Hamilton was for privilege and hierarchy so would be on the right - preserving the traditional order.

[jaqeboy]

Btw, did everyone see the table and meet the folks from the ALL (Alliance of the Libertarian Left) at PorcFest? There was so much interest in their literature and discussions, the poor Republican Liberty Caucus guy at the table next door complained of being lonely - no one was coming to his table!!

There was also an interview with the ALL guys on Free Talk Live Saturday night.

[jaqeboy]

Plus, Darrin did a spiff poster, Soviet-style for Agorism:

That's Noor (from Chicago?) next to it.

[John Edward Mercier]

The book, The 5000 Year Leap, has a neat chapter about the left/right argument.  The founders didn't have our concept of left/right.  In their day, left was all government, right was no government.  This would make me a right wing extremist.  If you look at today's parties, both the republicans and democrats are lefties according to this standard.  Far right wing republicans (fascists) that want to control your personal moral life and are just as much part of a police state as the democrat that want's to make you wear a seat belt or tax you into poverty to give that tax money away to someone else.  Fascism and Communism/Collectivism are both far left, neither one represents the idea that government is here to "secure the blessings of Liberty".  Today we've turned the argument into Political Parties not political power.

That is merely the extremes of the modern politics...
Jefferson. the father of the Democratic Party, would be considered to the Left due to his affiliation with the Democratic Party. But would not be happy with its current policies... after all he was an anti-federalist (not as strong as Patrick Henry from which the NH motto actual was paraphrased by John Stark... but anti-federalist none-the-less).

TJ was a "Democratic-Republican" and against privilege which puts on the left via the French understanding as jack has pointed out.

Hamilton was for privilege and hierarchy so would be on the right - preserving the traditional order.

But modern left is for centralized control...
Historic positions tend not to equate to modern parties.