While I don't think of my libertarian tendencies as anarchic, perhaps a free form services marketplace appears that way - oddly enough. Particularly in terms of coordinated provisions which don't need to be taxed in order to be inclusive, if and when time use is equally approached. And yet some among the discussion at BHL, were effectively arguing for limits to a human activity which is more basic than economic access. How much more distrustful of fellow humanity do any of us need to become?
Would it not be a better approach, to allow people more complete rights to their humanity? Okay, enough rant! First I want to consider the Wikipedia definitions, but I also want to touch on economic rights which have yet to be provided: rights which could help both in economic and social terms.
Consequentialist libertarianism and what is also referred to as natural rights libertarianism don't seem as clear cut to me, as they are delineated in the Wikipedia examples. From the consequentialist link:
...refers to the libertarian position that is supportive of a free market and strong private property rights only on the grounds that they bring about favorable consequences, such as prosperity and efficiency.Efficiency? Hmm. Part of the problem in this regard is that both physical and social elements of environment have been compromised - in terms of the experiential element which adds so much to both product and environment definition. While "favorable consequences" are certainly a consideration, the framing here can be awkward when it is left too wide - particularly in terms of national "rule making" one size fits all patterns, rather than local paths for economic and social activity. The more centralized the outlook, the more that rules over discretion tend to be sought. Indeed, parental licensing feels like that kind of approach.
One part of the problem regarding planned environments: what are the expectations behind the thought processes, as to what human nature might consist of (in aggregate) in the future? For instance: will the split between knowledge use and base skill sets only widen? Let's hope not - hence plan so it doesn't. In all of this, something does get planned, according to the expectations which "win" the day.
And if the negative interpretation of human capacity "wins"? Those on the short end may increasingly opt out of family formation just the same. Without the possibility of a meaningful life path, family formation may serve little purpose. Except...the lack of familial identity particularly hurts some individuals all the more, who also don't have economic identity. Regular readers know that I tend towards the consequentialist view, in terms of creating better paths for aggregate time use capacity. Rules such as a license for parenting would especially hurt those who are already in regions which lack true economic access - should these individuals be brave enough to take on the odds.
Deontological libertarianism certainly does not get to the heart of some issues which concern me. One reason is obvious: land use rights are somewhat sterile in terms of overall applicability and economic vitality. When we generated product primarily through land formations, economic rights in terms of land were particularly important. They still are, but land and environment use need to be far more flexible (and liquid) components of community business and living strategies than is now the case. By creating local land shares and flexible building components for business and living environments, individuals would become able to take much needed local risks, without constantly being exposed to bankruptcy hence needless ruin of resource options.
However, digital communication and time use product are not really dependent on land - particularly those formulations which insist on single use capacity. What's more, knowledge use has gradually become the "soil" which now generates some of the most important product - robots or no. However...where are our rights in this regard? So far, rights for knowledge and time use appear as though nonexistent - even though time is our constant, and individuals can benefit from knowledge aids which exist well beyond the bounds of patents and credential seeking.
A lack of economic rights also accounts for missing aggregate time use capacity - so much so that this has finally distorted monetary policy. How to address the problem? Individuals need production rights which extend to both knowledge use and product definition, in order to regain economic access and bring stability back to monetary systems. Incremental time use ownership options for knowledge and (other) resources would also make it possible to rely less on finance. This approach would make it possible for finance to regress into the limited societal position it actually warrants.
What would production rights consist of? Some of the more basic aspects would be services based. For instance, rights to heal and rights to educate - in some instances - would become based on what is possible to achieve in one's life, and what others are willing to accept as defined product. The only time anyone's services offerings might be formally negated (in settings which allow a free marketplace for services), is when the results are clearly shown to harm others.
Just the same, most limitations would be informal in nature, so as to encourage more positive and informed offerings on the part of the provider. What's more, it is easier to determine this at local levels with mutual record keeping of ongoing activity, than through present day national institutions which attempt to monitor the product which millions of individuals rely on.
Another important aspect of production rights, would be to have the right to define the kinds of product we use in physical terms. One thing that would help in this regard, would be the flexible component aspect which allows reconfiguration and adaptation from agreed upon aspects of production. However, much innovation is needed at infrastructural levels, before new production standards can be realistically agreed upon. Communities have arbitrarily adhered to limited sets of standards (from centuries earlier) which makes many kinds of innovation impossible in the present. Exit and voice would ensure that different communities would gain the right to work with different environment adaptations than are now possible.
These are just some aspects regarding how my ideas fit in with Wikipedia definitions, and when possible I'll return to these definitions to find further comparisons.