Libertarianism includes the right to own property.
Also common ownership of the means of production is an old idea, and has been tried many times. It always results in poverty.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right to own property. But that a good way of organizing society is collective ownership of the means of production. If you are part owner in something with shares and a contract, that obviously still relies on property rights. That is how the stock market works after all.
EDIT: I am basically proposing a change in norms, rather than a change in rights. Currently the norm is individual private owners or ownership by a board of directors. I am proposing ownership by communities as a collective. Same rights involved, but a different norm.
That said, I think privately- and collectively-owned enterprises can coexist (and compete!) just fine, and in a truly free market we'd see a healthy amount of both.
In the US, at least 10,000 collectives have been formed. You can form one any time you like. They're not illegal.
> you want to argue without really thinking about what I am saying
I've thought about it for many decades. I'm not trying to suppress your discussion, ideas, or any efforts you may make towards creating a (voluntary) collective.
Feel free.
BTW, I read somewhere that over 10,000 collectives had been created in the United States. Where are they now? Oh, they all failed.
A famous one was the Summer of Love in San Francisco in the 1960s. It only lasted for a summer. Seattle's Summer of Love a couple years ago lasted a few days before imploding. (Google CHAZ - Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone)
It really feels like you are not reading my comments. I just said in the comment you are responding to that I am working on this, but it is a few years away. That is not to say I am not doing anything now, but I have to lay the ground work. For me to say I am actively working on this and to read your response as "go ahead and do it then" really feels like you do not want to engage with what I am saying.
> BTW, I read somewhere that over 10,000 collectives had been created in the United States. Where are they now? Oh, they all failed.
They all failed? Walter, I can easily find a long list of active co-ops just in the Bay Area alone. It seems to me you are speaking with authority on a topic you don't know very much about. https://www.cooperationrichmond.org/coop-movement/worker-coo...
That said, failures do happen. Lots of privately owned businesses fail too. Would you suggest then that privately owned business as a concept is not viable?
I think what you are missing is that people in today's economy are suffering, and people are desperate for something to change. I suspect you are doing okay, and not desperate for change. Good for you. But the number of people in your position is literally dwindling from a statistical perspective in the USA. For everyone else, they cannot just sit comfortably and dismiss suggestions on how to change things. They need change, as for many it is literally a life and death situation.
A long list? A handful out of the zillions of companies in the bay area. It's statistical significance is zero. Some are charities, which are obviously not self-sustaining. I wouldn't be surprised if others were sustained by government checks. People start collectives in the US all the time, but the test is if they last. A typical collective seems to last about 2 years before imploding.
> Lots of privately owned businesses fail too. Would you suggest then that privately owned business as a concept is not viable?
Compare your list of a few communes with what's in the Yellow Pages for the area for the answer.
> I am working on this, but it is a few years away
While I wish you success in your endeavor, it's not really a collective unless you have other collective members signed up and collaborating with you. From much personal experience, I can attest that announcing one is working on something doesn't mean anything to anybody. It only matters if you've got something to deliver. I know that sounds harsh, and it is, but that's how things work.
> what you are missing is that people in today's economy are suffering, and people are desperate for something to change
I understand very well that they are suffering. They are suffering as the result of leftist government policies, not capitalism.
You are moving the goal posts. You said "they all failed" but this is false. I was pointing out your error.
> Compare your list of a few communes with what's in the Yellow Pages for the area for the answer.
I believe from the above two quotes you are saying that co-ops have failed as a concept on their own merits. I.E. we can observe their relative popularity compared to hierarchical corporations and conclude that co-ops as an idea are a failure.
But of course, as you seem to be a libertarian capitalist, you must also believe in the correctness of ideas which have so far failed to gain traction. In fact there are many philosophical ideas throughout history which were superior to the status quo but had not gained traction. For example take democracy versus monarchy. Would you have looked at Europe 1000 years ago and concluded that democracy had failed in the marketplace of ideas? Certainly not. In the same way, cooperatively owned businesses are part of a broader labor movement which was systematically attacked by those in power to dismantle its strength.
One notable example is the Taft–Hartley act of 1947, which placed significant limitations on the legal right to strike or boycott. I am not an expert on the labor movement in the USA but without going in to an entire debate on the subject, you can understand how the existence of unions and cooperatives (which I lump together as part of a common labor movement) may not have failed purely on its own merits, but may have failed due to attacks from organized special interests. So without proving or disproving that claim, you can see how a simple examination of the state of the labor movement today is insufficient to conclude the merits of those ideas as they relate to the average person. Just as you could not look at Europe in 1000AD and conclude that democracy was an unworkable ideal, and that monarchy was obviously superior.
> I understand very well that they are suffering. They are suffering as the result of leftist government policies, not capitalism.
You mean the leftist government which placed significant limitations on the power of labor organizations? The leftist government which funds the largest war machine in human history? The leftist government that remains the only major country in the world without some form of universal health care? Sorry Walter, but only in the wild fantasies of FOX News commentators looking to get re-hired and Republican politicians trying to scare their base to secure their election is the USA a leftist government. Though to be clear, I am a libertarian communist and I want the US government to stay out of my way. This is why I advocate for cooperative ownership of the means of production and not government control of industry.
I appreciate that you finally chose to engage with what I was saying instead of dropping the same tired arguments I have heard and disproved so many times before. But of course I still disagree with your position. My issue with capitalism is not free markets. My issue with capitalism is direct control of our economy by an elite few who have class interests that run counter to the interests of the average person. The mismatch in interests between those in control (who seek power and profit) and the other 99% of the world population is what creates poverty and strife. And only when the people have control over the machinery that provides for their survival can we truly be free.
Failing and disappearing is a feature. Failing and lingering on through violence and coercion is the real sin.
I suggest you contact all like-minded authors and suggest they join your book collective and donate all their intellectual property rights.
And we can certainly discuss the merits of our government granting ever increasing copyright terms. Copyright is not a natural concept, but an artificial one created by government agents. Surely this forum is a good place to question those choices and discuss alternatives.
Have you heard from any?
> copyright terms
I have a history here of advocating short copyright terms. I speak as someone who made a living selling copyrighted materials. The stuff I write today is all released under the Boost License, which is as close to public domain as it gets (because some countries have no legal concept of public domain).
I also have a history here of dispensing with patent laws, even though I hold some patents.
Thank you for the clarification. When I try to discuss these ideas I feel like you respond, without asking what I have been doing to pursue this, by saying "go and start one then" "it's not illegal" "go find other people to talk to about this then", which feels very much like you do not think that is exactly what I am doing when discussing it here. It feels like you think I need to be somewhere else to be doing that. And it feels rude that you tell me to go and start one without understanding that I am laying the groundwork in my own life to be able to do something unprofitable indefinitely (my collective will be a non-profit collective). I cannot just quit my job and do that tomorrow, but I have been working very hard for years to arrange my life appropriately to follow that pursuit, and I have made great progress. Already I am getting several hundred dollars in donations to my non profit. Not enough to live off of, but I continue to produce youtube videos promoting my non profit engineering. Your comment of "go and start one then" feels very dismissive.
> Have you heard from any?
From like minded people? Yes! My generation is extremely interested in libertarian leftist ideas. In providing for everyone regardless of the market value of their skills. I run two small youtube channels where I promote these ideas, though there are many very large channels with millions of subscribers who talk about them with more skill than I can, as most of my time is dedicated to my non profit engineering organization.
I am glad we agree on copyright and patents. I too have a few patents but would prefer we dispense with patent laws. And I release everything of mine under permissive open source licenses.