Talk:Propertarianism

Article doesn't mention the antisemitic fascism inherent to present day Propertarianism
From reading this article, Propertarianism seems like just a nice nerdy economic philosophy. But this paints a grossly misleading picture of what present day Propertarians believe. A cursory reading of e.g. https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=jews shows how integral "The Jews" as a archetypical enemy is in the Propertarian writings. It feels like having a Wikipedia article about Nazism and focusing only on Hitler's programs for economic development, leaving out all mention Jews. Superficially NPOV, but in reality extremely POV by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.224.121 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Curt Doolittle used to be mentioned in the article, but it was removed some time ago. He should be included, if you ask me. Benjamin (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Confusion by Editorial 'fitting'
1) The term Propertarian evolved like capitalism as a criticism of libertarians as "an obsession with property". The term 'Propertarianism' was not used. Never used that I know of. There were that I know of, only a few existing uses in the literature. This information was present in this article and has been deleted. Restored here for reference:

START BLOCKQUOTE Historian Marcus Cunliffe used it in 1973 lectures to apply to "characteristic values of American history" in regard to property.[1][2][3][4] Hans Morgenthau used it in a more limited way to characterize the connection between property and suffrage.[5] It appears that the term was coined (in its most recent sense, at least) by Edward Cain, in 1963:

... Since [Libertarians'] use of the word "liberty" refers almost exclusively to property, it would be helpful if we had some other word, such as "propertarian," to describe them. [....] Ayn Rand .... is the closest to what I mean by a propertarian.[6] L. Neil Smith describes propertarianism as a positive libertarian philosophy in his novels The Probability Broach (1980) and The American Zone‎ (2002).[7][8]

Ronald Hamowy describes Murray Rothbard's form of libertarianism as "propertarian" because he "reduced all human rights to rights of property, beginning with the natural right of self-ownership."[9] Rothbardian libertarian anarchism or anarcho-capitalism advocate that property only may originate by being the product of labor, and may then only legitimately change hands by trade or gift. They term this as "neo-Lockean".[10] Other libertarians question the self-ownership view on the grounds people can't be property, even of themselves, and that by ignoring the psychological aspects of being, the viewpoint downplays the concept that "liberty defined by self-determination is the control of choice in human life and development."[11]

David Boaz writes that the "propertarian approach to privacy," both morally and legally, has ensured Americans' privacy rights.[12] END BLOCKQUOTE 2) The term Propertarianism refers to a specific discipline and political movement that I have spent the past decade advancing. Any search by google or bing will return the rather obvious result. I know it is pointless to comment here but we (The Propertarian Institute) are saturated with requests to update this page to assist those who complain that they can't find it on Wikipedia.

3) The increase in the use of the term Propertarian is the result of the increase in awareness of Propertarianism and the related popularization of the term. Again, this is obvious from a search on any engine.

4) Eschewing the traditional journal route is common practice in reactionary and dissident movements worldwide, since it is no longer of value or necessity.

5) Our experience with Wiki is (a) inability to disambiguate this distinction between the criticism "propertarian", and the project and movement "Propertarianism", in order to 'fit' want of a noun, thereby misrepresenting history and present, and (b) active suppression because it is wiki policy to actively suppress selective ideas.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.17.110 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Label
There is a problem with the propertarianism label, in economics in another places and include in U.S. property is not the same than capitalism.

For libertarianism is better the word privationism, because the defensse an especific way of property: Private property.

I will redirect Privationism to Libertarianism, and in propertarianism i will put a article.

Requested move
Propertarian → Propertarianism — Propertarian is an adjective and we want a noun — Singwaste (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Actually, propertarian can be a noun, just as libertarian can be either an adjective (he had a libertarian philosophy) or a noun (he was a libertarian).

L. Neil Smith and I got into a bit of a harangue about this issue of his inventing the term "propertarian" for use in his book _The Probability Broach_. Obviously, Le Guin used the term anti-propertarian in her works. So, I went to the Oxford English Dictionary, which was open at the time, and found uses for the term going back well into the 19th Century.

The terms propertarian and anti-propertarian are used to describe, among other things, two schools of anarchist thought. I don't currently have access to the OED site, but the term probably shows up in their dictionary along with their usual etymology references.

A brief letter on the subject: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2001/libe146-20011105-01.html#letter3

Urban Dictionary gives a brief, 2005 definition. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=propertarian

It seems odd that there are no citations on this page.

Planetaryjim (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good pointers however, I'll point out that there is a difference between someone who claims to be 'a propertarian', whether some position is 'propertarian', both of which are general statements, and the narrow, formal name to a particular niche position 'Propertarianism'. Curtd59 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

-- Curious...was the exclusion of Curt Doolite (https://propertarianism.com) from this article an oversight, or was it intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.109.8 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Mostly original research
Except probably for a couple novels which aren't ref'd and an occasional mention here and there - which aren't mentioned here, there really are no WP:RS showing that anyone uses this term in any notable fashion. People should work on that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed WP:OR and put in sourced material only. To keep the article in compliance with policy, please do not add a lot of personal philosophy without any sources or with self-published non-reliable sources. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
All philosophical positions have specific names for specific movements for the purpose of argumentative clarity, with specific metaphysical or argumentative criteria. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for examples. Or see various wikipedia articles under say, Realism and Naturalism. Or anarcho-capitalism vs Agorism.

Propertarian and Propertarianism are different terms, and we may want to write about 'propertarian', which is a looser definition,  then create a disambiguation page, and link to a new page that disambiguates 'propertarian' as a general label for libertarianism from 'Propertarianism' as a specific discipline with specific criteria. It may be that agorism and and anarcho capitalism are propertarian, but they are not forms of propertarianism, because in each case the other systems of thought include specific criteria that distinguishes one from the other: agorism is a boycott strategy under the assumption that boycott is sufficient to enact change, and anarcho capitalism is a research program which seeks to provide private solutions to public services (see Hoppe) and to justify those solutions as morally absolute (Rothbard).

Propertarianism does not make this claim. It simply says that all rights are reducible to property rights, and therefore all moral codes can be expressed as different allocations of property rights between the common and the private. It does not assume a single absolute morality, in either common or private property rights, or even a preferable morality from the combination of property rights that are possible. It says only that knowing that there is no uniform moral code, because of the different abilities of groups, it is only logical that we attempt to accommodate different moral codes in government the way we accommodate different ends in the market by cooperating on means by exchanges instead of ends by majority rule. This is a very narrow position. Like all philosophical positions that are clearly articulated.

Criticism is warranted and valuable, however, the criticism should be specific to the narrow constraint of the definition of Propertarianism, by arguing what all rights are not reducible to property rights, or that morals are not made commensurable by doing so - not why libertarianism in general may or may not have flaws. Those criticisms belong to libertarianism in general, or to those other philosophical positions that are propertarian-like, but not to this particular statement.

And criticism should separate 'propertarian' in the broader sense, from 'propertarianism' in the specific sense.

Thanks Curtd59 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I put back material you deleted. In Wikipedia we go by what sources about the topic say. I don't see any reliable sources saying Propertarianism and propertarian are not related. They are as related as libertarianism and libertarian. Now there may be different definitions of propertarianism like there are of libertarianism, but that does not mean you just delete the one you don't like. It means you explain the differences using reliable sources. Just find WP:Reliable sources and report what they say; if they agree with you fine. If they disagree, and you can't find any that agree, it's still our responsibility to report what sources say. User:Carolmooredc  14:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, Well, then you are contributing original research. And defining terms by your original research. Unless you can demonstrate that Propertarianism (as specific libertarian methodology) is referenced somewhere, then you are in fact, misrepresenting both evidence, creating misrepresentational entries, and doing so for the purpose of creating original meaning, of your own volition. So, likewise if you cannot find that the general category 'propertarian' is references as a specific philosophy 'Propertarianism', then you are not referring to sources but creating individual research. You will not find it unless it is fraudulently created. (I know, because I conducted that research prior to registering the domains, trademarking the term, and using it as the name for my work on Propertariansm. And if there is someone more knowledgeable than myself in this field then it would be very helpful to know that person. Because those of us who work in this field are a very small and close community.)   The origin, and therefore etymology of the term 'propertarian' was as a pejorative criticism of those libertarians that reduced all human rights to property rights, thereby granting undue weight to property in matters of political ethics. Self identified Libertarians for example may or may not adhere to Libertarianism, Anarcho Capitalism, Minarchism, or Classical Liberalism or a host of others within the category. Only some of those labels can be classified as 'propertarian', and none of them can be classified as 'Propertarianism'. Propertarianism makes no claim about political structures, and classical liberalism violates property rights in order to enforce norms. Curtd59 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.185.254 (talk)

All, Update, There were no references extant to the term 'Propertarianism' before we used it. The term "propertarian' was used exclusively as a pejorative (a criticism) of libertarians (propertarian libertarians in the jewish tradition of authors). We chose this term precisely because it had NOT been used.  Just as Capitalism was originated as a criticism, our decision to select Propertarianism was in part to convert the criticism 'propertarian' into a positive meme..

At this point Propertarianism is a small but organized movement and the use of the term is slowly spreading in the political vernacular (which is easily seen by a Google search). So we must apparently either create a disambiguaiton page, or maintain this one for the multiple uses of the term.

Propertarianism
Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that attempts to express all ethical, moral, and political questions as consisting of various forms of property that can be voluntarily exchanged - under the theory that all moral propositions are reducible to voluntary exchange of property obtained by first use or voluntary exchange. The principle that the voluntary exchange of property could form the basis for all human cooperation evolves from John Locke, through the nineteenth century British and American authors, and in the postwar period was used systematically by American libertarians.

USAGE The term is used casually to suggest that all questions of liberty are reducible to a statements of property and its voluntary transfer; more accurately, that property rights are deontologically constructed necessities of human existence under natural law; and formally to refer to a complete system of philosophy named 'Propertarianism' for the analysis and criticism of all political moral and ethical questions.

In grammatically correct usage, one makes a propertarian argument; one ‘is’ a propertarian if he holds ideological bias in favor of its use; one relies upon propertarian reasoning if he can make use of it, or one advocates propertarianism in some manner or other; and the name of the fully articulated formal philosophy is Propertarianism.

Propertarianism, (capitalized) for the explicit philosophy; and lower case for 'propertarian', which is used to refer to all three senses: "Locke was the first to state a propertarian argument."

DIFFERENCES FROM LIBERTARIANISM Propertarianism is a logical system for the rational comparison, and logical decidability, of human moral propositions across all possible moral codes. Libertarianism is an ideological system of thought for the purpose of either obtaining political power, denying others political power, or bringing about a particular social and ethical system that relies upon propertarian arguments as the first principle of legal decidability under rule of law.

Curtd59 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Curt Doolittle listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Curt Doolittle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Curt Doolittles "propertarianism" is a misnomer - it should be called "reciprocism." Doolittles conception is pretty much the opposite of support for private property. He considers any and all interests and "stake holding" to be legitimate property, and as a consequence supports all sorts of collectivism and statism. E.g. The right to stone homosexuals or to prevent abortions are a property in his system, so long as those are the collective's norms. His propertarianism.org page is basically a 'bait and switch' trying to sucker libertarians into his collectivist anti-propertarian system. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

NOPE NOPE NOPE. ;)

Sigh. Look you can try to vandalize by idiocy but that's all it is - vandalism

"Propertarian" was a criticism levied against libertarians of all stripes. At the time it included both the rothbardian, and the hayekian branches.

"Propertarianism" is a brand name of specific body of work. I know, I invented it, and registered it, to formalize the critical label "propertarian" as a bit of a play on words. Any search engine, and google's term history will demonstrate that quite easily.

There are at least three branches of people calling themselves libertarians: The European tradition of Classical Liberalism exemplified by (a) adams, jefferson, and hayek - classical liberalism, (b) My work which uses a system of strict construction (formal operational logic) of the law (think the supreme court questions) that eliminates legislation from the bench, and arbitrary legislation from the government, and (c) the randians, rothbardians, hoppeians, which call themselves either libertarians or anarcho capitalists.

The similarity between these branches is that they are all dependent upon rule of law, not rule by man (government). The difference in premises between ALL branches of libertarians is the scope of property between (a) demonstrated property (anything that causes a conflict) and (b)intersubjectively verifiable property (physically scarce goods), regardless of whether a conflict ensues. Which in turn determines the scope of tolerable actions by individuals, the court, and the state - which is a difference over the limit of rule of law.

If we look at this spectrum: (a) classical liberals are permissive with the state, and (b) anarcho capitalists are permissive with individual behavior. And, (c) my work in the middle impermissive of both, requiring trades between individuals and classes both. And in addition, I've extended warranty of due diligence from goods and services, to information (speech) released to the market (Public), which would hopefully put an end to the lies our peoples are daily subject to.

I don't have any faith in the ability of editors to govern the content here any more than I do on any other political, economic, moral, or religious subject. There is no such thing outside the physical sciences as NPV at international scale. My work constructs a value neutral language of human sciences whether metaphysical, psychological, sociological, moral ethical, legal, and political. Maybe someday all content will be written in strictly constructed value neutral language, so that this nonsense stops. But lying and misleading for amusement and signaling purposes continues unabated. ;)

I just write notes here to record a long history of mammalian territorial marking by all involved. Otherwise I'd simply write a decent version of the page - which I'm probably capable of and no one else is even close other than maybe Hoppe.

2601:188:4101:D000:9D2C:2F6B:4123:8E58 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Redirect: Options
REGARDING THIS PAGE AND THE REDIRECT.

SEE THIS FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Curtd59#Hi%21


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you know if there are any reliable sources that show how influential you are within Propertarianism? Another editor there was going to remove all mention of you from the article, but I've also heard that you're the one who basically invented it. Benjamin 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean...

1. I wrote it right?

2. I teach it at the institute. (propertarianism.com)

3. The site has the content at www.propertarianism.com > Home > Main Menu > "Propertarianism", including:
 * - Overview
 * - Learning Propertarianism
 * - Videos and Podcasts
 * - Reading List
 * - A Style Guide
 * - Glossary

4. The institute's website has the history back to 2009 at www.propertarianism.com/blog, that includes something close to 10,000 posts.

5. Google or Bing search will show it's my work.

6. Google ngram viewer will show the term appearing in '65 and disappearing until I registered and started using it as the brand name for my work.

7. My book won't be published until later this year or early next (I don't control that).

8. Despite the extremely difficult subject matter, I have thousands of subscribed followers in what is effectively a study of the strict construction of law, by the strict construction of language. The associated political movement is small, but that's to be expected. Most academics in likewise niche technical disciplines would be thrilled to have my following and influence.

HISTORICALLY - THE LEGAL TRADITION

I mean, Rothbard was a student of Rand's, Hoppe was a student of Rothbard's. And I'm a student of Hoppe's. It's personal acquaintance (relationships) direct experience (mentorship), and it's all well known in the community. (Even if I'm sort of outcast for my criticisms of Rand, Rothbard, and Hoppe.)

I don't know what else to say.

MARKET DEMAND

We (the Propertarian Institute) are pressured constantly to improve the wiki page on Propertarianism. The primary value of a wiki page would be to disambiguate the uses of the terms.

PAGE QUALITY

This page content is terrible and always has been. If I hadn't resurrected and branded the term it wouldn't even exist. Not that I can write a competent wiki page in simple language NPOV, but overly detailed prose is different from simply being wrong.

PROPOSITION

Three Options:

1) I'd be ok with disambiguating:
 * "propertarian" (the reduction of all questions of ethics to property rights) from;
 * "propertarianism" (a disparaging synonym for "libertarianism", originated in the 60's) from;
 * "Propertarianism" (a formal system of operational logic for the strict construction of Constitutions under Natural Law)

2) Or, I'd be ok with simplification further, and would suggest mention be limited to:

"Since 2013, Curt Doolittle has expanded the scope of propertarian thought into the formal discipline of Propertarianism, as a strictly constructed implementation of Natural Law."

This sentence can be followed by a footnote link to the Propertarian Institute at propertarianism dot com.

I don't care whether anyone makes a wiki listing for my name. The search engines work just fine. Having a personal page on wikipedia would just invite vandalism because I am a controversial figure that is the target of harassment by the hard right and religious right.

3) Or, we might prefer eliminating the page entirely since it does nothing to explain, and everything to confuse, and conflate. Eliminating the wiki page would let search engines do their job instead of using wiki's dominance to promote confusion at the top of search results.

I don't care which of those occurs.

Curtd59 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said before, are there any sources? Benjamin (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be merged with Capitalism
>Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for a minarchist or stateless society with governance systems limited to enforcing contracts and private property.

This is literally the definition of capitalism. "Propertarian" is a slur against capitalists invented by the left. This page shouldn't exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.193.182 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Capitalism is a slur": yes it is.

"should be merged with capitalism": no because while anarcho capitalism justifies capitalism, propertarianism justifies rule of law under which what we intuit is 'immoral' capitalism is illegal. The capitalism socialism dichotomy is a lovely distraction for common folk, when the difference between them is rule of law without limits (capitalism), rule of law with limits (rule of law), classical liberalism (permissive rule of law in production of commons), democratic socialism (maximization of rule of man, preserving minimum rule of law), socialism (eradication of rule of law, implementation of rule of man), and communism. All states must choose a mixed economy to survive so we colloquially use capitalism and socialism as nonsense words to describe a bias for private retention or public retention of proceeds from production, distribution and trade.

2601:188:4101:D000:9D2C:2F6B:4123:8E58 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)