http://permaculture.org.au/2010/09/22/a-dim-view-of-libertarianism-part-i-what-is-libertarianism/

I read this post, and I read the Roots of Change link. A lot of points in both, so here’s an unordered list of my thoughts:

-I don’t think large hand holdings necessarily need to be broken up. First, what is “large” anyway? And plenty of large land titles are just. But in general, I choose your option #1, and add that it is NOT by government. Speaking specifically of the thousands of acres adjacent to me, typically owned in several hundred acre chunks, they exist in monocropped, bare-soil-fallow 8-months-of-the-year, huge tracts solely because of farm subsidies. Quit taking my money and giving it to my neighbor as payment for screwing up the landscape and feeding us crap. That’s what I want, and removing government’s monopoly on force would achieve it.

2. Speaking of governments monopoly on force, that is what allows corporations to do the really bad stuff they sometimes do. Next time you hear of corporate atrocities, ask yourself where the actual physical government guns come into play. Without them, the evil scheme probably wouldn’t work. Note that this does not cover some things you often complain about like “unfair” wages and lack of “public interest.” If the wage is voluntary, it’s fair in my book. And there is no “public interest” apart from the interests of individuals.

3. Libertarianism does not require human perfection. As I keep saying, it is just the best way to cope with our shortcomings. By never allowing anyone physical domination over others, a whole crapload of bad practices go away. I’m sure you’ve written on it somewhere, but just how do you expect all of us bad humans to somehow vote up good laws in a democracy? Granting some group of people coercive power over others (and that is what any political system is, even your local democracy which admittedly does probably minimize this problem) is not conducive to fair play.

4. I agree that pushing the red button and wiping out government today would not work well. Not because we need government for any reason, but only because without educations and more popularized thirst for liberty, another government, probably worse, will pop up like a weed in the former’s place. So we agree that hearts and minds need to change.

5. A question occurs to me. Since you favor localized democracies and self-rule to some extent, what would you say about a world in which one such local democracy turned itself into a libertarian anarchy? Fair play? And no, we will not belch earth-destroying pollution into the sky – if our activities harm others we’ll be civilized and stop them.

6. The “big business has almost complete control over our seeds and food systems” line is oft repeated, but definitely overblown in my opinion. I can more easily procure seed and plants of any useful plants species in the world today than ever before – other than a few commercial varieties which we’re not very interested in anyway. Yes, most of our food comes from big companies, but there is nothing keeping us from doing things differently. …oh wait, yes there is, the… wait for it… government! With their vast array of “safety” regulations that hog-tie small producers wanting to actually sell their food, they forcibly prevent voluntary transactions between farmers and customers. See Salatin’s “Everything I Want to Do is Illegal.”

See: http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Naess_Appreciation.html

A libertarian view of land monopoly: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eleven.asp

I found this while looking up links for your questions. I will skip the others to make sure you look at this one. Interesting and informative historical facts regardless of your political persuasion. – JBob

JBob – thanks, yes, Rothbard’s article is an interesting read. You’ll notice it echoing some of my concerns.

1) Economies subject to investment from entities working in their own ’self interest’, “free from government harrassment” end up being leached of their resources and labour. I expounded upon this here and here amongst other places.

2) I spoke about the fact that we’re not starting from a clean slate – that inequality and land monopolisation abounds, so just removing government, or opening markets to free investment, doesn’t address this. The article quotes Carlos Fuentes: “You started from zero, a virgin society, totally equal to modern times, without any feudal ballast. On the contrary, we were founded as an appendix of the falling feudal order of the Middle Ages…”

Note that Rothbard says: “Furthermore, the free market and capitalism flourished earliest and most strongly in those very countries where both feudalism and central government power were at their relative weakest: the Italian city-states, and seventeenth-century Holland and England.”

The interesting thing is that in the article he doesn’t seem to recognise one simple fact – that America is actually controlled by feudalists. He says:

Largely escaping feudalism itself, it is difficult for Americans to take the entire problem seriously.

Can we not see that America, and the rest the ‘developed’ world, is under the almost complete control of feudalists? (see here).

Further, as described above, with all apologies to the American Indians, the first settlers did start with a clean slate. They started with a clean slate, and with all that freedom and equality promptly started to rebuild another feudalist state. The cartoon at top of the page in the last link pictorally expresses the concern of early settlers as they saw the beginnings of corporate feudalists taking control over government, so they could favour their ’self interest’.

I’ve said to you repeatedly this very fact – that if we were all to start afresh, on a fresh clean planet, and with all of us receiving an equitable parcel of land, that without deeply motivated ethical values, or laws that enforced ethical behaviour, we’d end up right back where we are today – with major social stratification, inequality and a destroyed planet. This is people simply working in their own self interest. Greed and selfishness. Libertarianism as a concept is fantastic – but it will only work if you magically rid man of his imperfections. This is something you cannot do, so Libertarianism is therefore totally impractical.

And the ‘free market investment’ proffered to ‘undeveloped’ countries is actually these wealthy feudalists extending their reach to take control over the citizenry in other countries, like they have control over those within their own borders (you and I).

Aside from manipulating our desires through advertising and product obsolesence, influencing politics, etc. (see The Century of Self), Big Business owns much of our land and have almost complete control over our seeds and food systems. Whilst at the moment government are aiding them in accruing this land and power, removing them won’t undo the results of those disastrous policies, subsidies, incentives and back room deals.

I see that we need to reinvent politics, not just wipe it aside – which would just leave the feudalists/capitalists to have unobstructed control over us.

Rothbard ends on the slavery issue – sharing an idea that would be rather unusual for most of us today: that being that the slaves should not only have been given their freedom, but also portions of the land they were working. This ties in to the article I wrote above. Just removing government would not accomplish this for the people above. Indeed, it would remove the only protection these workers have against their overlords.

We need to build a steady state economy – one not dependent on perpetual growth. And we need to control it ourselves through the most democratic system we can conjure – with its success dependent on full participation by an ethically motived, holistically educated citizenry.

At the end of the day, large land holdings will either be broken up by:

1) financial incentives – ‘get small, or get out’
2) revolution (bloodshed – and the end of the world as we know it)
3) voluntary cooperation and kindess (hence my asking if you’ll give some of your land to someone who needs it)
4) by arbitary government decree – court order.

The first and fourth are by government. The former I favour. The latter being rife with impossible decisions (who decides who actually owns your land for example – it could be claimed by an aboriginal descendent of a man who foraged there 3,000 years ago). The former allows for transition – and time for people progressively taking control of smaller holdings to upskill and learn how to manage it. Many times in the past, as I wrote here, people took control of land hurriedly, only to fail to utilise it due to ignorance or lack of resources to make best use of it.

The second is what has almost always happened historically. In the context of today, we’re talking global meltdown with a high likelihood of it bringing in a new reign of fascism as government tries to overwhelm dissent.

The third is so against our selfish nature that this is an extremely rare thing, and highly unlikely.

Do you see another option? Which would you choose?

Again, don’t take me to mean I’m communist. I’m not. I just don’t see libertarianism offering anything but a strengthening of feudalism. In an ideal world, complete freedom would rule – but, sounding like a broken record, that can only happen if everyone exercising that freedom is fully objective, holistically educated, and morally motivated. Failing that, we need laws to work for the public good.

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

In relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss offers the following criticism: “The arrogance of stewardship [as found in the Bible] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation.”[8] This theme had been expounded in Lynn Townsend White, Jr.’s 1967 article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”,[9] in which however he also offered as an alternative Christian view of man’s relation to nature that of Saint Francis of Assisi, who he says spoke for the equality of all creatures, in place of the idea of man’s domination over creation.”

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

Maybe it’s now time to abandon both the idea of “ownership” and “stewardship”?

The patterns of human biology are now thoroughly understood. We need a massive reform in our societies to wipe out “sick patterns” that are not in harmony with our genes. This means we need to establish new patterns or design systems that put humans in harmony with our genes, through oppressing our bad behavior or attitudes, and encourage our good behavior or attitudes.

As we now understand that our true biology is tribal, we need tribal system designs or patterns, to replace ALL other systems created since we left the tribe. Because only in a tribal system we can thrive, and only through tribal systems our civilization can survive.

What is forgotten in this discussion is that we also need governments in the process of returning land to the nature. It is a fact that in a truly tribal system based upon the principles of permaculture, we can return 97 % of the land we now hold, to nature wildlife: http://permaculture.org.au/2010/08/12/permaculture-%E2%80%9Cyour-way-to-sustainable-living%E2%80%9D/

According both to the ethics of permaculture and to Deep Ecology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology , I see it as a crime against nature to hold more land than what we need.

I found this while looking up links for your questions. I will skip the others to make sure you look at this one. Interesting and informative historical facts regardless of your political persuasion.

“Land monopoly is far more widespread in the modern world than most people—especially most Americans—believe. In the undeveloped world, especially in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, feudal landholding is a crucial social and economic problem…”