<div>The following is rather long but it seems to me it is worth considering in light of Natalie's "take" on Libertarianism. Maybe Natalie has her own private version of Libertarianism, but the more common variety is based on the notion of "natural rights" and a "system of natural liberty" in which private property is a key premise. A couple of weeks ago, David Bollier posted a link on his blog to an essay by James Quilligan, who discussed the epistemology and metaphysics of liberal political philosophy in an article in Kosmos magazine, "The Failed Metaphysics Behind Private Property: Sharing Our Commonhood." <br>
<br>When people talk about "liberty" they may be talking about two very different and contradictory ideas. One of those ideas has to do with personal autonomy. The other has to do with the primacy of private property, even to the extent of over-riding personal liberty. The ownership of slaves, for example, is not seen by the second view as a violation of private-property based natural law.<br>
<br>Below is Bollier's introduction to Quilligan's essay: <br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Many people don't recognise that the commons is not just <em>a thing</em>
� a physical element of nature or a resource like the Internet � but a
distinct metaphysics and epistemology that challenges some deeply rooted
premises of contemporary politics and policy.� James Quilligan probes
this territory with <a href="http://www.kosmosjournal.org/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=3897902%20">a thoughtful piece in the latest issue of <em>Kosmos</em> magazine</a>.
In particular, he explores the �social nature of property�and how its
individual, atomistic nature in liberal political philosophy is
responsible for �its catastrophic impact on the commons.�</blockquote></div><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The essay is not a quick read, but it is a
provocative and penetrating piece about some of the deeply rooted
assumptions that shape our understandings of property, individual
identity and how government and public policy should behave.� All such
discussions must start with John Locke, the great 17th Century
philosopher who created the enduring justifications for property rights.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One of Locke's central ideas is that
property is inherently about individual rights of ownership and control,
which means the right to exclude others and to ignore the larger social
and ecological context of those rights, not to mention future
generations. This understanding, in turn, entails an understanding of a
human being as a dualistic creature, one who has a sovereign mind and a
separate and independent material body.� The mind/body dualism is
actually the basis for a larger political theory that assigns property
rights to individuals (and not larger collectives) and charges
governments with recognizing and enforcing those individual rights.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Quilligan traces the consequences of the
mind/body dichotomy and how it in turn has led to a corresponding
separation of humans from nature itself. Under liberal political theory,
humankind is meant to assert its mastery over inert, objectified
nature; it has no need or obligation to enter into a subject-to-subject
relationship with it, as most traditional and indigenous cultures do.�
That's why the very idea of "nature's rights" is nonsensical to western,
modern societies -- and why Bolivia, for example, regards modern
development schemes and market exploitation as an egregious, irreverent
crime against the cosmos.�</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The epistemological foundation pioneered
by Locke and others has enabled modern societies to develop science and
technology, and a market economy that is capable of unprecedented
material output.� But it is also responsible for human societies that
are quite alienated from nature as a sovereign force in its own right.�
That issue lies at the heart of so many of our environmental problems.�
We presume that we are separate from nature, and that nature itself is a
passive object with no agency of its own.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Another, usually overlooked result of
this metaphysic, notes Quilligan, is that �nearly all autonomous rights
to the commons are unconstitutional since state legitimacy is given
almost exclusively to private and public property. Hence, common
property has little foundation in civil law. Claims for the commons are
largely dismissed as pre-modern ideas, superstitions, or excuses for
anarchy and piracy. Both natural and social commons are viewed merely as
a passive field waiting to be acted upon � a res nullius in legal terms
� something to be claimed, contractualized and developed as private
property.�</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">An equally profound and overlooked result
of the liberal property framework, writes Quilligan, is that �it veils
the state's monopoly over the legitimate use of coercive power to
suppress the self-organization of common property and to punish those
who violate the rules of private property.� One need only consider how
Native Americans were forced to become individual property holders as a
precondition for American citizenship; or how the collective interests
of subsistence and traditional societies in Africa and Asia are regarded
as legally nonexistent; or how the collective interests of communities
on the Internet has no legal standing but for the private-law hacks like
Creative Commons licenses and the General Public License for free
software.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I won't recount the entire essay, but
suffice it to say Quilligan traces these philosophical principles up to
our contemporary neoliberal regime, noting how the market and state have
joined forces to become a collaborative �Market State,� blurring the
lines between the two realms and marginalizing the role of
representative government. This has been crucial premise for globalizing
commerce and elevating market interets over state interests.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">All of this history and philosophy
matters because it helps us understand the deeper challenges we face in
�claiming our commonhood,� in Quilligan's phrase, and in establishing
new sorts of trustee systems for managing our common property.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">�Commonhood,� he writes, �is the
self-organizing and rule-guided practice of a community to preserve,
make, manage or use a resource through collaboration.� One reason that
such a system can succeed is because it asserts a more accurate,
humanistic model of human nature than that of private property, which is
severely limited to the point of caricature. While it is true that we
all exhibit material and rational self-interests (as economists never
tire of declaring), it is also true that we are intrinsically social
creatures who care about what others think, and are prepared to
cooperate in order to establish stable, robust and enduring societies.
The Hobbesean vision of a nasty and brutish humanity is certainly not
the whole story.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Quilligan's essay is well-worth reading.
It is the beginning of a larger series of essays that he plans for
Kosmos starting this fall, entitled, �Toward a Common Theory of Value.�
While many people regard philosophy as too far afield from the
hurly-burly of practical, contemporary politics, it is highly useful to
situate the commons in the larger context of history and philosophy.�
How else are we to develop astute strategic approaches toward reclaiming
our commons?� Quilligan's piece is a great point of departure for this
much-needed conversation and activism.</p><br><br></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Natalie Golovin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I am not captivated by labels, and wonder how you come to the conclusion I'm<br>
an authoritarian when I support ideals that reject any central<br>
authority-whether it derives from a dictator, a government or crony<br>
capitalist bosses & their bankers. Many died in prison camps. I never said<br>
anything about Reich dying in jail. Perhaps you have me confused with<br>
another person who doesn't find his reputation compelling.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:ideasinc@ee.net">ideasinc@ee.net</a><br>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 1:05 PM<br>
To: P2P Foundation mailing list<br>
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<br>
<br>
You seem to have your own investment in labels and attribution by<br>
association, which overall perpetrates the same sin you have declared as<br>
inappropriate. Were you aware that Reich died in prison, not jail, for<br>
"contempt of court" and that his books were widely burned in the from<br>
about 1950 in the US. The Mass Psychology of Fascism was published in<br>
1933, before he immigrated to the US. As a study it is only thinly related<br>
to his later work relative to sexual energy, Orogone. Sexual repression at<br>
that point was only a part of his social psychological analysis of<br>
authoritarian cultures. So who else will be guilty of your attributions of<br>
unintelligent and irrelevant or worse. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:09:41 -0400, Natalie Golovin <<a href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Reich was the darling of "soft" academia in the 60's. I find him<br>
> irrelevant<br>
> as well as unappealing. My preference is the recent and pragmatic Eric<br>
> Hoffer- a man of the people. The totalitarian left has murdered more, and<br>
> caused far more economic despair than the Fascist right. Dictators demand<br>
> unitary power/control to engineer/impose their egotistical world-views.<br>
> Fascist corporatism has many more voices and simpler motives. My "take"<br>
> on<br>
> Libertarianism is that it couldn't be a mask for its own gain- because<br>
> there<br>
> are no real leaders-no central authority. We ask for a limited,<br>
> intelligent<br>
> and competent political structure that will act as honest watch-dog,<br>
> moderator, umpire, referee- to negotiate competing demands in a<br>
> free-market<br>
> society. The rewriting of the Interstate Commerce Clause helped removed<br>
> govt<br>
> from local democratic control. Abuses contributing to the current crisis<br>
> have been the result of collusion among global corporate and political<br>
> leaders with the eager assistance of an unethical financial community.<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:ideasinc@ee.net">ideasinc@ee.net</a><br>
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:47 AM<br>
> To: P2P Foundation mailing list<br>
> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<br>
><br>
> Natalie,<br>
> Wilhelm Reich wrote an excellent book, that generally is ignored. The<br>
> title is the "Mass Psychology of Fascism." it is based upon his direct<br>
> experience of the rise of Nazi fascism in Germany and of his direct<br>
> contact with Stalinist communists which he also describes as a form of<br>
> fascism. Then there are the various degrees of totalitarianism. Both are<br>
> very similar by the enforced conformity to authority. "Libertarianism" as<br>
> a concept has also been used to provide an acceptable appearance for<br>
> other<br>
> forms of authoritarianism, most notably the siege against small "d"<br>
> democracy and the role of governance to protect and preserve the commons<br>
> in its many forms. The Libertarian Party in the US has been gathering<br>
> point for nominal conservatives who operate to diminish the commons in<br>
> multiple contexts. Sticking to the outcomes and objectives as would be<br>
> expected in a democratic process does seem like a better way to define<br>
> and<br>
> sustain an open process. Yes, there is a substantial potential problems<br>
> when appearance and labels are accepted as either adequate or applicable.<br>
> In short you, imo, are quite correct in being suspicious of labeling as<br>
> basis for political correctness.<br>
><br>
> Tadit<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:19:19 -0400, Natalie Golovin <<a href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Declaration will cause movement to lose a lot of support. You may say<br>
>> you don�t care about Libertarians anyway-not very democratic attitude.<br>
>> When the Left gets going it�s more frightening than the Corporatocracy<br>
>><br>
>> From: Michel Bauwens<br>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 12:14 AM<br>
>> To: p2p-foundation<br>
>> Cc: Amaia Arcos<br>
>> Subject: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net/Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City</a><br>
>><br>
>> Dear Amaia, can you publish this on our blog?<br>
>><br>
>> Michel<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sandwichman<br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>