Left Ro

Left Rothbardian 

Left Rothbardian is a belief that hat property can only be legitimately owned by two means: direct trade from the past owner of that property to a new owner or the potential new owner applying the labor to unowned land. This puts a claim on the confiscation of the private property, in particular the part about applying the potential new owner’s labor to said unowned property (Applying it to 'ill gotten property') is legitimate leads to legitimate ownership of that property.

The difference between the Classic homesteading principle and this Neo Lockean principle is that the first means also accepts the Lockean proviso as legit, which states that the homesteading principle only applies so long as there is enough of and of the same quality for everybody else, while this Neo Lockean principle rejects this.

It heavily advocates for the respect of private property as a natural right which it derives from the right of self ownership. However it does not see property as legitimate if it is a derivative of coercion, including, if the property derives from state benefits.

Left Rothbardian is against the idea that regulation helps to eliminate or mitigate oppression by the big corporations since it believes the state is the source of the problem it says to solve.

Left Rothbardian doesn’t agree with the view that the Gilded Age was a Laissez-Faire period where the state did not have interference and where the free markets ran the world. The Gilded Age was marked by huge state privilege to selected capital owners and corporations

These state benefits came in ways such as tax breaks, subsidies, or even direct monopolies on certain industries, even though there were certain big businesses at the time which didn't get privileges from the government.

Left Rothbardian believes that these types of corporations which the state benefited with more or less largesse should be allowed to be seized by their workers (or third parties) to eliminate state benefits to companies

Left Rothbardian supports the seizure of "private" property through the homestead principle since that type of property is derived from theft (i.e subsidies funded by taxes) it thus is not legitimately owned, and thus the rightful owners are the ones who apply the labor to said illegitimate property. 

It feels that property that was previously stolen by the government legitimizes the seizure of this property. 

Like, if the state built a college with money from tax payers, applying my homesteading principle, the college is rightfully the property of those who had been stolen. However, since it's not easy to find out who the university is going to be given to (since it's not stolen from a precise individual), then Left Rothbardian feels it's rightfully the property of the workers who by mixing their labor with the facilities have claimed this illegitimate property. 

This system makes us want to consider though, that while they are to be rightfully property of those workers who applied their labor,  they are, to an extent, beneficiaries of the government. Thus the second group which can be selected for this ownership are the students themselves who lost their money paying for the maintainance of this ‘ill gotten’ property and the payment of the faculty.

This can be applied like for companies which have benefited from the robbery directly like colleges that get 2/3 of their income from the state. This would also legitimizes the seizure of those colleges by their workers, since a significant part of the benefit of that comes from stolen property. It’s only just that, still applying my homestead principle, the college is seized by the workers. This slow reduction of the state would eventually hopefully lead to a stateless society led by market forces and private property.