What Libertarian school does everybody follow?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
The more I look into it, the more I believe that anarcho-capitalism (see Stefan Molyneux, the Mises Institute, or David Friedman) makes sense.
Not sure what mutualism refers to, but if it requires belonging to a collective (even against ones will) it seems to violate the non-aggression principle, which I value.
Yeah I like everything I read about anarcho-capitalism.
The reason mutualism doesn't neccesarily violate the non-agression principle is that a mutualist does not respect an individuals right to privately own property, IE they would see a capitalist owning capital as theft
I think things would break down very quickly if nobody had any recognized claim to property, except perhaps via their ability to control or manipulate some governing structure that controlled who had access to what at any given time. (Even communes tend to split after growing to a few hundred members, it is hard for most people to have communal/caring relations with more that a hundred or so people, and even then many/most of those are genetic relationships.)
It seems to me to be more workable and fair to say that those who make or trade (without coercion) for stuff own it IMO.
ancap
There is no governing structure controlling who has access to what, and whilst anarcho-capitalism may be better in practice, mutualism is reached by taking different property rights axioms, it is an ideological difference
I don't know too much about it (I don't have as much time to devote to learning about politics & economics as I'd like!), but I believe the main distinctions are that property must be in use to remain valid, and that workers are entitled to the full value of the produce they create
I am hoping to read Proudhon's "what is property?" to learn more
Anarcho-capitalist here.
@ Kokopele:
I think that workers can never get the "full value" of the product they create in a workable business scenario, barring some collective ownership which would have to be forced on them (a violation of the NAP) in most cases.
Owners of capital are taking a risk in the initial investment (most startup businesses go bankrupt), and are paying immediately (wages, equiptment, etc.) in the hopes of later profit. Without the chance of this profit - i.e. if workers got it all - they would be risking money for nothing.
On the other side of things workers want to get paid immediately (not wait for goods to be sold and debt paid off), and don't want to pay a business to get trained at the job or paid very low wages while their initial productivity is minimal. They also don't want to be on the hook for losses should a business go bankrupt with oustanding debts to various parties. Many people also want a regular paycheck instead of a variable one, and don't want to worry about the underlying business issues at play in any given business.
I am a big fan of profit sharing and even collective ownership when possible, but it seems that forcing collective ownership on people would not work out well in most cases at present, indeed if it did I think I think we would see it in many places already (fast food restaurants come to mind).
Regarding economic books, I highly recommend the book "Economic in one Lesson" by Hazlitt, a bestseller for decades now due to its brief yet comprehensive and easy to understand overview of basic economics. For a more current book I would suggest "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, about twice the length but with numerous present-day examples of how things go wrong when interventions in the economy occur in the real world.
Lots of free books and papers at https://mises.org/Literature/Index for anyone interested, including the Hazlitt book and others like it.
"Economics in one Lesson" is a wonderful book. 
Agreed, the world would be a much better place if everyone read that book.
Alright I'll put it on my reading list
@Tao
workers can never get the "full value" of the product they create because the market price involves embedded taxes due the government on the workers' labor, royalty fees on the mining of the raw materials, property taxes on real estate supposedly "owned" by the business, etc.
The owners of capital are justified in expecting profit in return for risk. Employees demand wages and salaries in advance of profitability. Well enough. But why can the government justify demanding taxation in advance of profitability despite providing no effort toward growing the business and assuming no risk? The issue is not the equitable renumeration of capital and labor, but rather government taxation depriving both capital AND labor.
After taxes, the worker goes home with less than the value of his contribution to the company. And yet, after taxes, the product must be sold ABOVE the value of the worker's contribution. Taxation is the reason workers cannot buy back the product of their own efforts. Taxation is the reason employers cannot pay employees enough. Taxation is the reason prices are too high for products in the marketplace. Taxation is the reason we become more indebted the more employee income we earn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzt4g67V8I (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm2AvhpFkec (full)
The party guilty of extortion is not the employer, but the State.
@ dchrist: I think we are on the same page on taxation, more or less, though my points regarding workers getting "full value" for their work (a term sometimes used by Marxists in debating and promoting their ideology, perhaps not the meaning intended by Kokopele) are valid regardless of whatever taxation is in place. I'm sure we both understand that all "business" taxes are in essence really taxes on consumers (they are passed along by businesses), making the term a misleading one in the way in which it is usually used.
That said, the cost of regulations may be a bigger issue than even taxation, and the debt - which will be mainly dumped on children and/or the unborn via later taxes unless massive inflation or a default is used - is also unjust.
It has been estimated that federal regulations alone cost the average large business about $7750 per employee, and the average small business (keep in mind that small business startups are the main producers of new jobs) about $10 500, or a total of about 1.75 trillion dollars a year.
As of 2010 the Federal Register (the document that compiles all the federal rules and regulations that businesses are required to comply with) was 81,405 pages long. Between 2001 and 2011, 38 700 new regulations were added to the Federal Register.
Insofar as taxes might be necessary in any given society, I myself would suggest a "fair tax" proposal as something to look at, which essentially tax the poor at near-zero rates and could eliminate the IRS with all the problems that it causes. With a significantly small government the tax rate could be much lower than required at present by that plan to meet current funding levels.
I like stefan molenux,marry rothbard,milton friedman and david friedman, hayek also. I am going more to anarcho-capitalism side these days but I also a big fan of classical liberlism
[COMMENT DELETED]
I find myself agreeing mostly with both left & right wing anarchist schools such as mutualism and anarcho-capitalistism, I know these are conflicting of course, I can understand both points of view however