Angurse: The communists and the "anarchists" had an alliance, the communists regularly shot and killed the "anarchists."
The communists and the "anarchists" had an alliance, the communists regularly shot and killed the "anarchists."
Not at first, only after the soviets got involved when the situation against the fascists was getting desperate. They got a couple of good years out of the bargain anyways, which is more than I can say.
Brainpolice:The simple answer is that most ancaps, unfortunately, are ideologues that don't understand the history of libertarian and anarchist thought very well, or even of the philosophy implicit in their own doctrines. They have conceptual blinders on. They generally don't understand the nuances or differences between the things like classic individualist anarchism, mutualism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and so on. For many of them, everything is either ancap or an overgeneralized boogieman of "socialism", which basically translates to "anything other than an absolutist natural rights, propertarian position". Their understanding of "freedom" is filtered through the lense of semantic word-association dogmatism and the influence of the political right on contemporary american libertarian thought.
Eh ideologues? I wouldn't say ancaps are ideologues. Passionate perhaps. Sure of themselves, obviously. I think ideologues are in the recent movement of limited-government/'patriotic' Glenn Beck watching conservatives. They really don't understand the realization of what they are stating. I definitely agree with you that people over-generalize socialism. Like did you see the recent Glenn Beck 'documentary' talking about 'progressives' when all it was really about was marxist theorists. Beck actually thinks progressives are marxists and everyone who is a socialist is a marxist. I want to put my head through the wall when I hear that crap. That is why I took up Nock's quote in my signature. Americans don't really have a solid philosophical background. They usually incorrectly give labels.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Americans don't really have a solid philosophical background. They usually incorrectly give labels.
Well, you don't have to think critically that way. It's actually much easier.
Laughing Man: Brainpolice:The simple answer is that most ancaps, unfortunately, are ideologues that don't understand the history of libertarian and anarchist thought very well, or even of the philosophy implicit in their own doctrines. They have conceptual blinders on. They generally don't understand the nuances or differences between the things like classic individualist anarchism, mutualism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and so on. For many of them, everything is either ancap or an overgeneralized boogieman of "socialism", which basically translates to "anything other than an absolutist natural rights, propertarian position". Their understanding of "freedom" is filtered through the lense of semantic word-association dogmatism and the influence of the political right on contemporary american libertarian thought. Eh ideologues? I wouldn't say ancaps are ideologues. Passionate perhaps. Sure of themselves, obviously. I think ideologues are in the recent movement of limited-government/'patriotic' Glenn Beck watching conservatives. They really don't understand the realization of what they are stating. I definitely agree with you that people over-generalize socialism. Like did you see the recent Glenn Beck 'documentary' talking about 'progressives' when all it was really about was marxist theorists. Beck actually thinks progressives are marxists and everyone who is a socialist is a marxist. I want to put my head through the wall when I hear that crap. That is why I took up Nock's quote in my signature. Americans don't really have a solid philosophical background. They usually incorrectly give labels.
Thank you for refuting this, I didn't have the mental energy after helping my neighbors battle the snow today :(
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Jackson LaRose:Well, you don't have to think critically that way. It's actually much easier.
What is much easier?
Not really, even the "anarchist" relations with the pre-war socialists weren't very peaceful or co-operative. The socialist trade unions would disrupt anarchist strikes and whatnot. Only when the war broke out was there an official pact, yet that didn't do much at all.
Laughing Man: Jackson LaRose:Well, you don't have to think critically that way. It's actually much easier. What is much easier?
Constructing snappy slogans and branding everything before critically analyzing it. You know "drive-thru politics". It's the American way.
Angurse:Not really, even the "anarchist" relations with the pre-war socialists weren't very peaceful or co-operative. The socialist trade unions would disrupt anarchist strikes and whatnot.
Yes, because they had ideological disputes.
Angurse:Only when the war broke out was there an official pact, yet that didn't do much at all.
Well, they took and held Catalonia for a few years, until the soviet statist puppets, and the fascist statists wiped them all out
Jackson LaRose:Yes, because they had ideological disputes.
That is the entire point, if you have ideological disputes the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend at all.
Jackson LaRose:Well, they took and held Catalonia for a few years, until the soviet statist puppets, and the fascist statists wiped them all out
Took it for a few years? That was the entire period. There was constant battles between the two groups during that period, and it was largely the "anarchists" who maintained their allies just others infiltrated.
Angurse:Took it for a few years? That was the entire period. There was constant battles between the two groups during that period, and it was largely the "anarchists" who maintained their allies just others infiltrated.
Well, fortunately, we aren't talking about trusting statists.
Jackson LaRose:Well, fortunately, we aren't talking about trusting statists.
Its much worse, we are talking about trusting anarchists.
"Whoa, that's cool!"
- Butthead, of Beavis and Butthead
See, I told their heart was in the right place.
Jackson LaRose:See, I told their heart was in the right place.
Thats right, destroy private property, burn down churches, kill "bosses." Much better than statists.
Angurse:Thats right, destroy private property, burn down churches, kill "bosses." Much better than statists.
If it isn't my property, my church (shouldn't have to worry about that one), and I'm not the boss, then they've already got a better track record than the state in my book.
Jackson LaRose:If it isn't my property, my church (shouldn't have to worry about that one), and I'm not the boss, then they've already got a better track record than the state in my book.
You cannot have a "better track record" following an "if." Of course, theres nothing to be alarmed about, "sure, you burned down my neighbours home but you haven't marched to mine, so... allies! Crush the state!"
(To be fair, not all anarchists, left or otherwise, are this awful, just too many for my taste.)
And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression. Similarly, at least as a tendency among "thin" libertarians, anyone that promotes values above and beyond non-aggression is often accused of advocating coercion, when of course this could very well be a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the distinction between notions of political justice and more general ethics.
This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before). In short, practically every political ideology says that it's against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that's taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called "non-anarchist", which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.
Brainpolice: And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression. This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before). In short, practically every political ideology says that it's against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that's taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called "non-anarchist", which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.
And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression.
Which is why I think productive dialogue with varying anarchist/ minarchists groups ought to start with polycentric law, decentralization, and mutually opposed authorities. I think nothing but good could come out of that recognition. It certainly would be more productive than the combo of starting with a perceived moral high ground and dismisive language.
I'm happy I could help. A few problems though:
Brainpolice:the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression.
I don't consider myself as an ancap, nor did I actually say that it would necessarily lead to "aggression." The point was that groups that share a common enemy aren't necessarily allies. The backdrop of Civil-War era Catalonia was used to simply illustrate the point. Also, I really don't care to defend why I (a "boss") shouldn't be killed, if that means I'm presupposing a property theory oh well.
Brainpolice:Similarly, at least as a tendency among "thin" libertarians, anyone that promotes values above and beyond non-aggression is often accused of advocating coercion, when of course this could very well be a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the distinction between notions of political justice and more general ethics.
That isn't the case here, for multiple reasons.
Brainpolice:This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before).
My own circles? OK? I'm not really sure where the problem is with being wary of bad allies. If allying with the state could help your cause would you do it?
Brainpolice:In short, practically every political ideology says that it's against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy).
Thats a big "no shit." We all have different values, another reason why education is key. That hardly means we should be willing to make allies with an "enemy of an enemy" much more common ground is necessary before anyone should be treated as an ally.
Brainpolice:The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that's taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called "non-anarchist", which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.
Thats funny actually, as the last thing I want is to even be called an "anarchist."
Apprently Kinsella really doesn't get Callahan's point, at least its implications.
Brainpolice:Apprently Kinsella really doesn't get Callahan's point, at least its implications.
I think Bob Murphy summed it up best.
"Guys! Gene, you have been making the same point for two weeks now: "Sometimes libertarians think they can blow people up by saying 'nonaggression na na na' and they don't realize this by itself is a circular argument."Stephan, you have been making the same point for two weeks now: "Gene, there is nothing circular about it the way I or Hoppe make the case. We objectively define where property rights come from."And I have been making the same point for two weeks now: "Gene, there are plenty of people who generally agree with the initial premises of libertarians, and also think they don't approve of aggression, who contradict themselves. And there are also people who AGREE that they sometimes support violating property rights for a more important principle."
I ran into Callahan on Murphy's blog. He wasn't very nice. It was strange because he said I just believe what is feed to me by LvMi and Lew Rockwell...yet he is a faculty member of LvMi and a columnist at Lew Rockwell. It was like some strange Hegalian anti-thesis moment.
Laughing Man:I ran into Callahan on Murphy's blog. He wasn't very nice. It was strange because he said I just believe what is feed to me by LvMi and Lew Rockwell...yet he is a faculty member of LvMi and a columnist at Lew Rockwell. It was like some strange Hegalian anti-thesis moment.
He pretty much left both years ago though.
Angurse:He pretty much left both years ago though.
Ah now what happened makes more sense.
You can fault them for sloppy semantics.
Or a fixation with semantics.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jackson LaRose: Hairnet:It may be possible that the mutualist conception of property rights is superior economically/sociologically to traditional property rights. Right! So let's bring down the state, and let the market settle the score, once and for all!
Hairnet:It may be possible that the mutualist conception of property rights is superior economically/sociologically to traditional property rights.
Right! So let's bring down the state, and let the market settle the score, once and for all!
This is where the pluralists get it wrong. The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market, a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm. A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace. A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.
Brainpolice: And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression. Similarly, at least as a tendency among "thin" libertarians, anyone that promotes values above and beyond non-aggression is often accused of advocating coercion, when of course this could very well be a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the distinction between notions of political justice and more general ethics. This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before). In short, practically every political ideology says that it's against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that's taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called "non-anarchist", which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.
A few things.
1. I am an AnCap, I do not defend notions of rights, freedoms, or the absurdly dishonest rhetoric of so called "Voluntaryists". There are just different meta-legal systems. I understand that there are MANY different ways of defining property. I think it is worth while to look into all of them theoretically in order to understand them.
2. I suggest you go to infoshop.com, and read the Anarchist FAQ. From what I have read, while there are many interesting criticisms of the capitalist system, these people have absolutely no interest in making allowances for your system or mine. Do you think these people would respect different cultures notions of property rights?
If an Left-Anarchist (Anarcho-Communism, not that benjamin tucker stuff) nation arose, and was at least somewhat successful, do you think that they would respect non anarchist societies ideas about how property was defined? Or would they cry "exploitation" and liberate us all?
3. I don't think different meta-legal systems can co-exist in the same geographical region. I don't how to solve this problem.
nirgrahamUK: Merlin:Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy. anarchists struggle for credibility. most people that don't reject anarchy out of hand, need to understand economics sufficiently to comprehend that anarchy would bring prosperity. 'anarcho'-'communists' greatly undermine this.
Merlin:Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy.
agreed. Not to mention most anarcho-communists I see making posts online are actually in favor of using force/violence against people that engage in "consenting capitalist acts" as Walter Block would put it. They believe in using violence to break voluntary arrangements.
Now if there are anarcho-communists that DON'T support using violence in such situations and truly believe that anarcho-capitalism simply won't work but that people should be free to conduct voluntary interactions, then sure I don't have any problem at all with those people. The way I see it, anarcho-communism is subsumed within anarcho-capitalism because people as individuals are free to get to gether and form a commune if they really want to. I don't think it'd be the most efficient choice for them to do things that way, but they'd be free to do so as long as they're not forcing anyone to be in it. And maybe the voluntary nature of the way they do things would make it more efficient than it would be if it weren't voluntary.
Brainpolice:In short, practically every political ideology says that it's against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist.
Indeed, but I think history may be closing that chapter in libertarianism. The almost superstitious reification of words and phrases like NAP, justice, and rights is no different in principle than socialists' treatment of words like capitalism. It's just a definitions game that leads nowhere.
Although I think I will disagree with many of your views, Brainpolice, I do hope you will spend more time here. Clarity will surely reveal that not much substantive disagreement remains after everyone's thorough self-investigation. As Jackson is saying, the important thing is being against the State.
Let's rise above mere words for a change.
Why anarchy fails
Hairnet:The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market, a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm. A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace. A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.
Can you elaborate this argument beyond prima facie plausibility? The bolded part in particular does not seem self-evident. Different legal systems have existed within the same territory in the past, according to this essay for example.
They are anarchists, for one.
Second, they are leftists.
Angurse:We objectively define where property rights come from."
Where?
Jon Irenicus:Or a fixation with semantics.
Well, if we wish co communicate rather than confuse, It seems quite important to be on the same page.
Hairnet:This is where the pluralists get it wrong. The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market,
I mean the "market or human interaction", not just the market in its economic sense. Why would this be outside the realm of the market?
Hairnet:a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm.
How do you define science? Empirical observation validating hypothesis? If this is so, than science is the only tool to validate anything. Otherwise, it is just your imagination whether something is true or not. Although I contend your assertion, even if I conceded the point, science is capable of changing your understanding of "A", as to make the original equation obsolete.
Hairnet:A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace.
I would argue that the market exists because many realize that cooperation is a more efficient, easier means to attain their ends than conflict.
Hairnet:A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.
This only applies if you take your a priori assumption a sentence earlier as a given.
Jackson LaRose:If this is so, than science is the only tool to validate anything.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Well, it doesn't make sense to me how you can observe something non-empirically
if as you now say, empirical observation is not going to be able to validate or falsify your assertion that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validateanything'? then supposing it be true that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything' and also taking into account your counter-example that empirical observation is not a tool we are able to use to validate your statement that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything' , where does that leave us?
nirgrahamUK:if as you now say, empirical observation is not going to be able to validate or falsify your assertion that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validateanything'?
Define validate or falsify
.
nirgrahamUK:then supposing it be true that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything' and also taking into account your counter-example that empirical observation is not a tool we are able to use to validate your statement that 'empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything' , where does that leave us?
We are left with you razzing me for catching me speaking in absolutes. Touche. What I should've said was:
As I understand it, all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation. The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori, unless you artificially define the terms. Also, it seems to me that it would be impossible to know anything, without experiencing something first.
Jackson LaRose:The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori,
Jackson LaRose:all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori, Jackson LaRose:all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation. and is this judgement a posteriori or an impossible apriori?
This is judgement a posteriori based on my understanding and beliefs on the nature of consciousness.
forgive me for not attaching too great an import to your insights on that basis.