Yeah, didn't mean to present Hobbes and Locke as polar opposites. I just think Hobbes does a particularly good job underscoring the violent pitfalls presented in the absence of social contract, whereas Locke doesn't really dwell on that aspect because it does nothing for his argument. They both arrive at similar places, but Locke does it through an appeal to reason, Hobbes through fear. Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though. I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
I am neither, but I know a few. Currently reading this monster, which is their bible. It's longer than the actual bible by a lot, and less poetic. However I read both for the same reason, which is to understand the insidious arguments presented within. Mutualists hold that everyone should own a portion of the factors of production and profit according only to their labor. The reason I mention it is that as a theory it's sort of a compromise between anarchism and communal government -- sort of! (The idea being, you come into this world responsible only for yourself and beholden -- economically -- to no one else, which seems somewhat to be what Mr. Ant is saying.) I would hazard a guess that Locke and Hobbes are both far removed from the reality Antman would like to see in the world, but such speculation is probably meaningless. (That is, he asks "why do we have a social contract" and you say "here are the two primary ways by which the social contract was derived during the Age of Reason" -- which begs out on the deeper question.)I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though.
Insidious indeed. The problem with that philosophy is that it doesn't on its face leave much room for compassion. Which is ironic, if you're going to give it a name like "mutualism." Maybe that concern's addressed in the specifics. But on its face, seems like a wholly unappetizing philosophy. Alright, I'm gonna see how far through this text I can get without wanting to kill myself. See you on the other side. EDIT: Actually, from the intro it least it seems like the bigger problem is that this philosophy is totally unworkable outside of the theoretical vacuum.