That's an interesting political philosophy.
On that Wikipedia page it says that it differs from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property.
Do you reject the notion of private property? And if so, does that mean all so-called property or only certain classes of property? IOW if we ran into each other at a coffee shop and I chose to walk off with (what I would call) "your" laptop, would that be congruent with your philosophy?
I think there should be other rights around possession and stewardship instead of property. It’s similar to moral rights of the author vs copyright.
So then you still want your laptop to be your laptop but you prefer a different framework of defining what that means in principle and in practice than the conventional, mostly western developed-world legal frameworks that currently dominate. Is that accurate?
Although I don't really like this term very much (because I think jargon in general seems to obscure what it's trying to disclose), I find myself mostly agreeing with what libertarians call "natural law" most of the time that they use it, and I feel like property - possessions - mostly have a pretty obvious "natural law" set of rights and wrongs around them that my dogs seem to understand perfectly well without any codification.
When there is contention between my dogs over some property, most often the assertion of natural law will carry and often the less dominant dog will prevail when she has natural law on her side. But there are also occasions when the provenance of some goody is not clear and in that case, might makes right in the dog world and the spoils then invariably go to the stronger, more dominant dog.
For all its warts, the capitalist codification of law surrounding property mostly aligns pretty well with my notion of natural law around property and mostly (*mostly*) protects humans from might makes right losses. Under your interpretation of libertarian socialism, how would property contentions be managed?
