i know only a little bit about each philosophy. they seem so similar, and i wonder, are they really just the same thing in spirit? or would you make certain distinctions? i’m seeking more understanding. i know that each has a different history, but i am asking about the philosophies themselves, separate from their manifestations.

additionally, are there other titled philosophies that are more or less the same as these?

i have read some definitions of so-called “classical liberalism” and they vary. some say that it is a philosophy that isn’t attached to any political agendas, but other definitions bind it to certain political agendas. i presume that so-called anarchism and libertarianism are also defined in different ways depending on who you ask.

it seems to me that many of the terms people use to categorize each other are too ambiguous, over-simplify, become perverted over time, and cause too much misunderstanding. maybe we should rid ourselves of these category conventions altogether, but that’s a conversation for another time; my primary question is enough of a topic for this post’s discussion.

  • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    if a corporation harms your property in any way without your consent, it’s like any other individual.

    Uhuh, that doesn’t track. I’ve seen plenty of communities have their property harmed by corporations, regardless of their private property. This happens all the time in countries like the Philippines. It’s also the case in the US. You don’t really have to travel far.

    • mr_pink@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m talking about post-classical libertarianism, every state, and corporations with the backing of states, violate the private property of individuals. This happens in all countries because none of them is a post-classical libertarian country.

      Rothbard and Hoppe are anarchists in the sense of no ruler, so no state is compatible with that philosophy.

      • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the solution isn’t the universalization of private property, but its complete and total abolition. Private property is scourge on this earth that has created nothing but poverty and misery. It’s much more consistent to reject private property as a hierarchy and domination outright.

        • mr_pink@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Without private property how do you solve that we both want to use the same resource at the same time for different purposes?

          • Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bro people have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years. Read Elinor Ostrom and her book Governing the Commons. As Ostrom says “if it works in practice, it works in theory.”