Quote from nivek

can you explain how in no more than fifty words?

Not really, but I'll try.

It is my view(and several other liberarian's positions) that when you are working for someone, you are essentially selling yourself into slavery, which in libertarian theory is badwrong. None of us object to people making immoral contracts like that, but a mutual system where you have an easy time getting the funds needed to learn a trade/occupation and start a business is more preferable. Property is theft and despotism. Liberty, equality, and security are better.

What I support[this is longer than intended]:

I support a system of self-employed workers and cooperatives honestly exchanging goods and services in a market without interest, rent, profit, landlords or capitalists. Rejecting social revolution, I support the destruction of capitalism by means of reform – a combination of more just and more efficient economic institutions (mutual banks and cooperatives) and pressurizing the state from outside to enact appropriate reforms.

what is the difference between "working for someone" and "exchanging goods and services"?

Time for some advanced libertarian thinking. Are you ready?

In libertarian thought every single person has the right of self-ownership. I think almost everyone on this forum can agree with that idea. With that in mind, there's also the business of of the non-aggression principle, and left-libertarian views of an-hierarchism. If you voluntarily exchange goods and services it's good. When you work for someone, as in you have a boss of some sort, you have to give him or her a fraction of your wages. And since I agree with the labor theory of value and the idea that everyone deserves the full fruits of their labor, I think it's wrong to impose that kind of hierarchy. Note that I also don't have a problem with you choosing to create a contract, that would be un-libertarian, because I still think that people are going to need hierarchy or at least the illusion of it. (My husband and I are perfect examples, of people that need hierarchy, but, this is a voluntary arrangement)

In libertarian thought every single person has the right of self-ownership. I think almost everyone on this forum can agree with that idea.

Er.... I do not even understand that let alone agree.

Self-Owned?

My 'self' is a construct that I own. It does not own me.

In turn I am not a commodity that can be owned. I am the current result of a long chain which binds me - whether I like it or not - to all existence. Without all the precursors - some of which are independantly existant and still present - I would not 'be' at all. I did nothing to make me; I did nothing to cause ownership of 'me'. How can I, or anything else possibly 'own' me?

From whom did this 'right' come from? From where, or what circumstance? What 'cause' is there for the 'Right' to be conferred?

If you voluntarily exchange goods and services it's good. When you work for someone, as in you have a boss of some sort, you have to give him or her a fraction of your wages.

to contract or sub contract, that is the question whether it be nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of running a business or to take up your tools and work for someone else and in so doing avoid all the hassle.

If i'm employed i have a contract with my boss, if I'm self employed I have a contract with my customer, I'm always beholden to somebody.

self-ownership

The only true self ownership would be to find some common land, forage for berries and trap rabbits.

@ Lady C.... May I ask you to outline in boxes all your beliefs whether political or spiritual. I have noticed one reoccurring theme to your posts 'u sit on the fence', this could be wrong on my part so that is why I am asking. For example you say you're a gradualist, anarchist so forth and so forth. So could you please explain what you draw from each one. Thank you

In order to help you along I will give you a kick start...here are your beliefs with some of your personality etc., extracted from your posts:

I am patient
I'm just weird. I feel that I must protect and help others, but I need to be in charge of them
I feel the best way to protect and help others is if I'm in charge of them and they listen to me.
I am a soft androgyne(but I don't identify that way, I identify as a woman) so...I'm not actually sure about it.
anarchist/mutualist
my views are pretty much "leftist".(I think it's common sense)
I am pretty much an anti-capitalist.
I am a free-market socialist/mutualist
I'm a priestess
I am a polytheistic animist
I worship the Norse
I believe in reincarnation
I'm basically libertarian
I like both anarchy and minarchy
I am in complete support of a minarchist government, but with the application of mutualist economics
I am somewhat of a communitarian and I am a bit of a "radical traditionalist"
Lady Catherine is a demisexual.
Lady Catherine champions marriage and family, even non-traditional forms
I am a dictionary feminist,
My expertise is in clinical psychology and social psychology
Despite being fairly liberal about sexuality, I have a bigger duty as a priestess to my kindred.
I am a woman and a pan-romantic
I'm a follower of Jung
I generally don't give a rat's ass what you do sexually with a consenting adult,
I need to control

Ok. I'm am fine spiritually:

I'm a priestess
I am a polytheistic animist
I worship the Norse
I believe in reincarnation

This is all consistent with Norse Heathen beliefs, and I am seriously a gythia(priestess).

My sexuality...

Lady Catherine is a demisexual.
I need to control
Despite being fairly liberal about sexuality,
Lady Catherine champions marriage and family, even non-traditional forms
I am a woman and a pan-romantic

I am a pan-romantic demisexual Dominant woman. I am a sadist and I am involved in a D/s relationship. I practice O&P(ownership and possession) and my husband is my submissive. Religiously, I support marriage as a concept, I beleive it's good when two people who love each other bonds through marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm not cruel by any means, I just have needs that differ from most women. I love my husband very much and I don't want anything to happen to him.

My...political views... are mixed. I AM confused about the role of the state and whether we should have one. I am still an anti-capitalist, though I do describe myself as one to people who can't get it through their thick skulls that a free-market isn't the same as being a capitalist. I consider myself a market socialist, my economic views are a mix of Proudhonian mutualism and Tuckerite socialism. I would probably support a political party that had Tuckerite socialism or Proudhonian mutualism as part of it's platform and was socially libertarian about social issues. As it stands no political party comes really close to my political beliefs and I really think it would be easier to just dispose of the state, but I would support a minarchy that adhered to my economic principles.

Also, it seems you pulled up some quotes about my profession. I'm a psychologist and a Jungian psychotherapist. When I was in school, I focused on clinical and social psychology.

Thank you LC, am I wrong in assuming the following statement 'You have fused together various beliefs and systems'. More or less taking what is good in all that you have read and applied it to what you feel is right and just for you...Would it not serve in your own best interests to create your own? Taking the time to mesh them together and come up with LCism?