Exh property

My views on private property are a mix of Gary Chartier private property views, Benjamin Tucker private property views, these Left Libertarian private property views and Leninist New Economic policy private property views

Left Rothbardian is a good alternative to woke Liberal 2.0 ideologies

Liberal 2.0 types of Egalitarian ethics are morally repugnant and devastating for private autonomy and social authority

I support private residence rights (in particular freedom of association for private home owners) and I don’t advocate abolishing or limiting such private resident rights

I tend to more times than not respect property owners’ right of association like the property rights element and the freedom of association of business owners

This Left Rothbard private property system I support below best embodies those combined private property views above that  I support. The only wealth and property that matters is ethical and spiritual wealth and property. When we move on to the 'next life', we only will take those things with us. All other things are immaterial

I feel in our any type of society, including our current capitalistic society, that property can only be legitimately owned by two means: direct trade from the past owner of that property to a new owner or the potential new owner applying the labor to unowned land. 

I use this idea to found its claim on the confiscation of the private property, in particular the part about applying the potential new owner’s labor to said unowned property (Applying it to 'ill gotten property') is legitimate leads to legitimate ownership of that property.

The difference between the Classic homesteading principle and this Neo Lockean principle is that the first means also accepts the Lockean proviso as legit, which states that the homesteading principle only applies so long as there is enough of and of the same quality for everybody else, while this Neo Lockean principle rejects this.

I heavily advocate for the respect of private property as a natural right which I derive from the right of self ownership. However I do not see property as legitimate if it is a derivative of coercion, including, if the property derives from state benefits.

I am against the idea that government regulation helps to eliminate or mitigate oppression by the big corporations since I believe the state is the source of the problem it says to solve.

I don’t agree with the view that the Gilded Age was a Laissez-Faire period where the state did not have interference and where the free markets ran the world. The Gilded Age was marked by huge state privilege to selected capital owners and corporations

These state benefits came in ways such as tax breaks, subsidies, or even direct monopolies on certain industries, even though there were certain big businesses at the time which didn't get privileges from the government.

I believe that these types of corporations which the state benefited with more or less largesse should be allowed to be seized by their workers (or third parties) to eliminate state benefits to companies

I support the seizure of "private" property through the homestead principle since that type of property is derived from theft (i.e subsidies funded by taxes) it thus is not legitimately owned, and thus the rightful owners are the ones who apply the labor to said illegitimate property. 

I feel that property that was previously stolen by the government legitimizes the seizure of this property. 

Like, if the state built a college with money from tax payers, applying my homesteading principle, the college is rightfully the property of those who had been stolen. 

However, since it's not easy to find out who the university is going to be given to (since it's not stolen from a precise individual), then I feel it's rightfully the property of the workers who by mixing their labor with the facilities have claimed this illegitimate property. 

We should consider though, that while they are to be rightfully property of those workers who applied their labor,  they are, to an extent, beneficiaries of the government. Thus the second group which can be selected for this ownership are the students themselves who lost their money paying for the maintainance of this ‘ill gotten’ property and the payment of the faculty.

This can be applied like for companies which have benefited from the robbery directly like colleges that get 2/3 of their income from the state. This would also legitimizes the seizure of those colleges by their workers, since a significant part of the benefit of that comes from stolen property. It’s only just that, still applying my homestead principle, the college is seized by the workers. This slow reduction of the state would eventually hopefully lead to a stateless society led by market forces and private property.

So under Left Rothbardian, the line between private property and private home steading-residence would be blurred

I recognize that on some rare occasions, the right to property can be spun to be seen as natural and self-evident, and for me to not totally write off the idea affirming private property rights, from an utilitarian perspective and also a deontological perspective. I have an open mind

Private property rights in some rare cases or in some contexts may extend from self-ownership and said scarcity is wrapped in material existence. 

I condemn all fraud and initiatory violence against a person’s life, liberty, and conditionally their property (as per my property views in these blogs). 

Private property is far from the worst way to reduce and reconcile conflict among persons but there are still much better ways to do so.

I can stomach non-corporatist privatization in a few places here and there when possible. 

In some cases I reject non-private collective stakes in resources. (I am Left Wing Anti Communist and have diverse views on collectivism)

The Non-Aggression Principle has good use within the framework of sound property rights

Civil liberties based on rights to own property are a fundamental necessity for a just society.