In Restraint of State:mmmmm.....no, it's pretty easy to say what is provoked or unprovoked. If you go over to Walter Block's audio on this site here he goes over it very thoroughly. If someone threatens to steal or commit an act of bodily harm to you, in earnest, then it is provocation with regards to the Non-Aggression Principle. The way I see it, this is pretty consistent with the logic of the NAP because the NAP is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership. All rights stem from individual soveriegnty and that's why the NAP is valid.
With regards to the non-aggression principle? You are continuing the circular reasoning. And not all libertarians even believe in self-ownership.
In Restraint of State:As for libertarians using "coercion" differently, i agree that some do....it's a matter of which ones understand the NAP or NAA and individual sovereignty and which ones don't.
Or how they understand them.
"Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will." - Noam Chomsky
Now what's wrong with this?
its an implicit attack on anarcho-capitalism, and a particularly stupid one at that.
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
It reads a lot like Marx, "There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process" Really? When did we surpass the need for division of labour?
nirgrahamUK:its an implicit attack on anarcho-capitalism, and a particularly stupid one at that.
How?
Angurse:Really? When did we surpass the need for division of labour?
I'm not advocating the ideology, I'm just wondering why it is unallowable in the hypothetical voluntaryist world. He keeps saying "free association", implying the existence of some sort of market.
Jackson LaRose:I'm not advocating the ideology, I'm just wondering why it is unallowable in the hypothetical voluntaryist world. He keeps saying "free association", implying the existence of some sort of market.
Didn't say you were, nor did I say it was unallowable, just stupid.
Angurse:Didn't say you were, nor did I say it was unallowable, just stupid.
Isn't it a workable ideology to ally with?
Jackson LaRose:Isn't it a workable ideology to ally with?
Too stupid for me.
Angurse:Too stupid for me.
Too stupid to utilize to achieve your desired goals?
Jackson LaRose:Too stupid to utilize to achieve your desired goals?
Sounds like it, division of labour is pretty basic stuff.
Angurse:You obviously cannot properly apply coercion to any "general success" unless you have correctly identified what coercion is beforehand. And even libertarians disagree as to what coercion is.
Do you mean to say that you cannot properly define what would be coercion with general success because there is disagree on what coercion is?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Angurse:Sounds like it, division of labour is pretty basic stuff.
Seems unnecessarily hard-headed.
Jackson LaRose:Seems unnecessarily hard-headed.
your response seems unnecessarily soft-headed.
Laughing Man:Do you mean to say that you cannot properly define what would be coercion with general success because there is disagree on what coercion is?
Sure, coercion is defined in terms of beliefs and meaning so its ultimately subjective.
Angurse:Sure, coercion is defined in terms of beliefs and meaning so its ultimately subjective.
Are we going down the rabbit hole again?
Not at all, such ideas do more harm than good. The less association the better.
Laughing Man:Are we going down the rabbit hole again?
Actually, we never got out.
Would you agree that initiated coercion in a circumstance isn't descriptive of an economic event based on human action?
wilderness:Would you agree that initiated coercion in a circumstance isn't descriptive of an economic event based on human action?
Maybe? Can you give some examples of non-economic events?
Jackson LaRose: Angurse:Sounds like it, division of labour is pretty basic stuff. Seems unnecessarily hard-headed.
Hey do you know how to PM on this site? I wanted to PM you something
Jackson LaRose: "Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will." - Noam Chomsky Now what's wrong with this?
There isn't any way to disallow voluntary anarcho-syndicalism in a free market. I don't really think Chomsky is an anarchist though. He seems to advocate increases in the size and scope of government on a regular basis.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Cause they are mostly idiots. That Tremblay guy and the likes.
scineram:Cause they are mostly idiots. That Tremblay guy and the likes.
Who? Those who reject self-ownership? And he's quite hilarious, I still don't believe he's serious.
Angurse: wilderness:Would you agree that initiated coercion in a circumstance isn't descriptive of an economic event based on human action? Maybe? Can you give some examples of non-economic events?
I don't know. I was thinking the question of law might not be economic. Yet human action being axiomatic I was thinking of this:
Since each individual human in their action is deliberate and purposeful, then an individual defending him or her self is deliberately defending him or her self. That is self-evident. But the question of law might be an effort to answer: Is the human deliberately resisting, meaning, would the human act in another way if coercion wasn't being initiated against such an individual? Now it may be that we can't say if the individual would do something else, because their action at the moment is self-defense. Yet this entails understanding a different social relation between the attacker and defender, which is that the encounter is not economic, but rather ethical. Ethics are based on human action, because that's all that is being described - the actions of the humans, but it's not an economic but rather ethical situation.
Angurse: scineram:Cause they are mostly idiots. That Tremblay guy and the likes. Who? Those who reject self-ownership? And he's quite hilarious, I still don't believe he's serious.
No, I reject too. The antihierarchtarians, the worst kind of antiproperty bozos. I think he means it.
I don't see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.
scineram:The antihierarchtarians, the worst kind of antiproperty bozos. I think he means it.
Oh, yeah I fully agree there, no problem with hierarchy myself. And I think your right, I just have trouble believing it.
Angurse:I don't see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.
awesome.
great.
thanks.
I guess to finish that up, then you are agreeing, maybe, that initiated coercion isn't an economic event, though, human action is still involved and the understanding of the event is defined in the category: ethics.
Angurse: In Restraint of State:Actually I think "force, " "agression," and "coercion" have been pretty clearly defined. Most people i've heard use them in my whole life have always used them in the same way. The only area of difference is "coercion" where some people believe "wage-slavery" is coercion, but their concept of wage-slavery is highly problematic because of internal contradictions (you can't allow someone to work for a wage, of you could be forced to pay someone a certain wage so that would essentially be confiscation and/or forced labor in some cases which itself would be slavery in order to pay someone a certain wage). Not really, even if they can agree on what defines aggression, say, unprovoked violence, the differences still remain, who decideds whether he was or wasn't provoked. And even libertarians use the term coercion differently.
In Restraint of State:Actually I think "force, " "agression," and "coercion" have been pretty clearly defined. Most people i've heard use them in my whole life have always used them in the same way. The only area of difference is "coercion" where some people believe "wage-slavery" is coercion, but their concept of wage-slavery is highly problematic because of internal contradictions (you can't allow someone to work for a wage, of you could be forced to pay someone a certain wage so that would essentially be confiscation and/or forced labor in some cases which itself would be slavery in order to pay someone a certain wage).
Not really, even if they can agree on what defines aggression, say, unprovoked violence, the differences still remain, who decideds whether he was or wasn't provoked. And even libertarians use the term coercion differently.
I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.
In Restraint of State:I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.
That's actually a very insightful comment.
Poor assumption, poor refutation.
And that - "having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest" - isn't even close to the standard definition of provokedwhat provoked means. So you are either trying to prove me point, or I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
There aren't any physical properties to words such as "coercion," "aggression," "force," etc, in social sciences, so when used they are only defined in the meaning people place. Which is SUBJECTIVE.
the problem i have always found with the anarcho left.......
is that i have yet to find a leftist anarchist who is willing to agree with me that the state is the problem. i have yet to see a leftist anarchist favor freedom instead of the statist intervention in all matters besides gays/sex, drugs, religion and abortion. most of these types also believe that we must crush liberty and the rights of others in order to create a more 'free' society. such as wealth redistribution, labor law, any manner of economic infringements on trade, commerce, etc... abolition of religion in order for them to be 'free from religion.' they also have a confused analysis of rights. right to healthcare, 'free housing,' etc.
afederalrepublican1776: the problem i have always found with the anarcho left....... is that i have yet to find a leftist anarchist who is willing to agree with me that the state is the problem. i have yet to see a leftist anarchist favor freedom instead of the statist intervention in all matters besides gays/sex, drugs, religion and abortion. most of these types also believe that we must crush liberty and the rights of others in order to create a more 'free' society. such as wealth redistribution, labor law, any manner of economic infringements on trade, commerce, etc... abolition of religion in order for them to be 'free from religion.' they also have a confused analysis of rights. right to healthcare, 'free housing,' etc. I would hardly call them anarchists then.
I would hardly call them anarchists then.
Angurse: In Restraint of State:I think you're assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn't. "Provoked" means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It's pretty straight forward. I seriously think you're just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument. Poor assumption, poor refutation. And that - "having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest" - isn't even close to the standard definition of provokedwhat provoked means. So you are either trying to prove me point, or I have no idea what point you are trying to make. There aren't any physical properties to words such as "coercion," "aggression," "force," etc, in social sciences, so when used they are only defined in the meaning people place. Which is SUBJECTIVE.
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....
And I shouldn't have used the word "provoke" but rather "threaten"
In Restraint of State:For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other....
Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.
Angurse: In Restraint of State:For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other.... Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.
You're sort of right, but if you take concrete-bound reductionism to its logical conclusion, you end up renouncing most of our language. The problem is that the assumption of the very criteria of explicit object-reference for meaning is mistaken to begin with. What we really have is a plurality of context-sensitive language games. See late Wittgenstein.
I think I get what you're saying...but "weapon" is just a subset of "tool," meaning it's a specific kind of tool. I'd also say that most physical objects can be used as weapons.
Brainpolice: Angurse: In Restraint of State:For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don't communicate using language. Language is "intersubjective" meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other.... Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn't any objective physical properties that can make the definition "concrete." One person may call a gun a "tool" another may say its a "weapon" said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue. You're sort of right, but if you take concrete-bound reductionism to its logical conclusion, you end up renouncing most of our language. The problem is that the assumption of the very criteria of explicit object-reference for meaning is mistaken to begin with. What we really have is a plurality of context-sensitive language games. See late Wittgenstein.
Agreed. Although, i don't know who Wittgenstein is, lol.
In Restraint of State: I think I get what you're saying...but "weapon" is just a subset of "tool," meaning it's a specific kind of tool. I'd also say that most physical objects can be used as weapons.
You're kind of getting it, any proposition referring to moral/economic/political theory is ultimately defined in terms of human beliefs.
"If we define an object in terms of a person’s attitude toward it, it follows, of course, that the definition of the object implies a statement about the attitude of the person toward the thing. When we say that a person possesses food or money, or that he utters a word, we imply that he knows that the first can be eaten, that the second can be used to buy something with, and that the third can be understood …."
- Hayek