this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
8 points (62.5% liked)

libertarianism

397 readers
2 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the "construction manual" is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rottcodd 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said nothing at all about capitalism. I merely asked OP by what right they claim the fruits of somebody else's labor.

To that end, I'd note that the right by which those cited in your examples do so is by entering into contracts with the creators under which the creators explicitly and (more or less) voluntarily grant them that right.

And therefore, I'd say that this:

My point, frankly, is that framing capitalism as a system where there is no “right [to] claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor” is fundamentally, objectively, incorrect.

is mostly wrong.

Any right that one might invoke in order to claim the fruits of someone else's labor is a right that has been explicitly granted by the person providing the labor, and that does not exist unless and until granted.

[–] MajinBlayze 1 points 1 year ago

It sounds like I need to apologize then. I jumped to the conclusion based on the name of the community and (to some extent) the sidebar, that the assumed framing was that of a capitalist system (i.e. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.). If that's not a valid assumption, then I fully withdraw my complaints.

I'm with you 100% on the ideas that peoples' labor and the fruits thereof is theirs and theirs alone to sell.

I'd still argue that coerced consent is no consent, and that under the current system, most permissions granted by people providing labor has effectively been coerced.