How are you for a free market and a socialist, unless you consider an capitalism to be "stigmertic socialism". To what extent is your belief socialistic?
My grumble about left anarchists is some of them being sympathetic to government programs. I mean if socialism is going to exist in a state of anarchy, a government wouldn't be able to control things, or else it wouldn't be anarchy.
Define socialism.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Oh, don't get me wrong. As far as socialism goes;
I believe strongly in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and certain forms of welfare (to the proles and lumpen proles).
I hold healthcare and education as a right that the system is trying to rob us of, sometimes I include subsistence as a right as well. I'm very anthrocentric in that regard.
I am pro-internationalism, and ergo anti-war and immigration policies.
I also don't trust a businessman as far as I can smell him.
I would push for people to set aside land for public use and environmental conservation.
As far as free market goes;
I think Mises, Rothbard, Smith, etc and other free-marketers are largely correct on how economies work (until you get into their politics. But the supposed value-free statements are largely correct imo), and I think communism (abolition of markets) is at least 1000 years in the future (when we have replicators and in such a manner that they are very widespread).
I don't believe in forced education. I don't trust institutionalized monopolies on violence. I think tax systems are inherintly unfair; rich people will always find a way to worm out of it. Any tax to me is inhumane, especially ones that effect anybody but the wealthiest 5% of a given population.
I find the state as nothing more than a way for wealthy capitalists (non-derogatory in meaning there lol) to push out competition and secure the markets for their own benefit. I am anti-fed, completely. And uh, I don't follow with some socialists who see any self-interest as greed (greed to me passes a certain breaking point of self-interest).
There's probably a bit more, and that may not have been that rational of a way to lay it out, but its the best I could do off the top of my head
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
So, the million dollar question is why you support the welfare programs? You would support anarchist versions of them? Forceful redistributions of wealth?
^This is what I mean, if you believe in people supporting each other voluntarily in their own labor, how can you believe in strongly people doing the same through coercion. I mean, if I don't want to pay for social security, doesn't that make social security coercive and taking away my freedoms as a person?
I mean if you want to support the struggling voluntarily you could in an-socialism, but you could in an-capitalism too.
I mean this and the problem of diversity is what turned me off of left anarchism. How are people going to organize to handle the demands of diversity? For example, there is food and entertainment, but there is so much of it. How are you going to make everyone happy or even manage that?
Why does anyone owe me education, or even food?
I've always been suspect of internationalism too, but I'm a bit iffy.
Honestly though, I feel if anarchy happens, and people want to go with an-socialism, they would have to have some type of market to even work.
More importantly then these questions, what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don't need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.
Libertyandlife:More importantly then these questions, what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don't need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.
The only question that matters is how policy is chosen. If you can get that right, you're gold. We should focus on how to choose policy (voluntarism versus aggression), and everything will become much clearer.
This is what I mean, if you believe in people supporting each other voluntarily in their own labor, how can you believe in strongly people doing the same through coercion. I mean, if I don't want to pay for social security, doesn't that make social security coercive and taking away my freedoms as a person?
I apologize if I didn't make it clear that I'm not a fan of putting guns to people's head to make them agree with me.
I mean if you want to support the struggling voluntarily you could in an-socialism, but you could in an-capitalism too
Exactly. Like I said, even in a socialist country (not communist. communism is the ending of markets, socialism is the means of productions owned by the workers as a whole. 90%+ people recieving somewhat significant dividends from stock is a ok with me ) markets will still be markets.
How are people going to organize to handle the demands of diversity? For example, there is food and entertainment, but there is so much of it. How are you going to make everyone happy or even manage that
Pretty much how they do now, with slight modifications. Central planning is not really a hallmark of socialism, really not even Marx is. I advocate for people to be more charitable, as both an ethical and practical issue.
Cuz you're a human silly , don't be so barbaric. Honestly I really have no justification farther than that (at the moment), and I'm fine with it. I find the notion that healthcare and education (probably even subsistence; food and housing) are not rights out-dated, barbaric, and somewhat draconian.
Also, on more practical notes, do you agree/disagree that education is good for markets and their actors in general?
I've always been suspect of internationalism too, but I'm a bit iffy I think national-anarchy, imo, will work out about as well as national-socialism did (both kinds, nazi's and stalin/maoists). IOW, not well.
what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don't need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.
distrust of the state, belief in markets as a good and progressive thing (all socialists do, if they're true to historical-materialism. capitalism > feudalism), distrust of politicians, we probably both like Ron Paul, anti-war, drug war, pro gun, probably both believe education in america needs major reforms, desire for less intrusions in our lives, belief in liberty as the highest human ideal (probably wildly different definitions of that tho. i'm going to tend to think you don't go far enough, but hey, every little bit counts)
most importantly, voluntary cooperation > coercion
Idk, what music do you listen to, probably some of that too haha
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I am a... libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger...?
Logically consistent?
I try to be.
EDIT: Missed your post Sieben. I completely agree.
If you're consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process? Aren't they just two parties in an exchange? What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business? It seems to me you're not inclined to freedom but special interests.
Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution? What is free market about public use for land?
It seems to me you're wrapping yourself in a lot of labels without actually considering the consistency of any of the correlating ideas, and particularly without considering the consistency of ideas in combination.
You say you are against institutionalized coercion, then take a weaker stance on taxation. Then follow it up with some of the above, most of which necessitates a tax, or at the minimum, the power to regulate.
Maybe I am not understanding you?
@Scott, this ^^^^ is what you're up against.
Jackson: "Alliances: Without suggesting that we betray principles(which was never my intent) I think we should be more open to alliances and collaborations with other groups on an issue by issue basis." no. have you ever seen these professional protestors or gone to any of their events. a protest against, say, raising student loans will draw crap from feminism, free palistine, legalize marijuana, end drilling, outlaw eating meat etc. do you really want to add libertarianism to this hodge-podge joke of ideas. you won't be making a stand, you will just be out there rubbing one out with the rest of the malcontents. (All rather cynical.Why shouldn't libertarians be part of things such as these when they are applications of our principles.) "In the past Rothbard aligned with the left on war and peace and today I think we should seek to do the same." there's a reason the rothbardians stopped all that nonsense. (True.However just because it failed at a specific moment in time does not mean it's impossible.Take for example Anti.war.com, not everyone there is libertarian yet they work together for peace ,oppose empire etc.) "To clarify ,in seeking alliances we should neither be universally and unconditionally supportive nor universally and unconditionally opposed." if you have principes, that'll be a difficult thing to live up to. (My principles do not require me to oppose leftwing anarchists who truly oppose the state and aggression.They lead me to seek to ally with such people.There's nothing in our principles that opposes that) "Considering specifically Anarcho-Libertarianism ,this is a brilliant possibility which hasn't really been tried before.We could seek an alliance with other anarchists" ...something tells me you haven't talked to many non-capitalist anarchists. I'll save you the time by telling you no, it's a horrible idea and there is no point in the attempt. (I've talked to a few left anarchists.Granted it hasn't always gone well.But in so far as we are anarchists we've had common ground) "This too would help aid our mainstream public image." anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism will never, ever, ever, ever under any circumstances be popular with the public or a majority. (I can see why you might think that.However we just can't know) "Who knows we might just learn something new." my money is on 'no, I won't learn anything new.' (Impossible to know.So your saying you won't learn of a new commonality? or individual both groups like? or idea we agree on or etc... "We must get out of the habit of talking of the economy today and in history as though it has been laissez faire,capitalist or libertarian." you need to really stop bandying about that collective pronoun as a) this is not the rev left forums and b) I and most of the people who have anything to do with LvMI don't talk of the economy as if we have a free market. ( My apologies in regard to (a). As for (B) well I have seem some equate Capitalism(which I assume means the same as a free market) with the current economy intermittently with calling it Corporatism or Socialism.Which is confusing and contradictory. "So it is a grave error for us to talk of the glories of Capitalism in raising the average person's living standards.Instead we should talk of the market" "if someone is so much of a simpleton that the difference between a successful or unsuccessful conversion to libertarianism is whether I use the word capitalism or speak vaguely of markets...well...that's not somone I really feel that will contribute in any way to progressing the ideas of economic freedom." But If you mistakenly call what we have today Capitalism and then claim we are for Capitalism (as in a free market) then your sending out mixed messages.It's a problem though thankfully not a big one. "we should also acknowledge that Wal-mart is involved in eminent domain,lobbying for laws which hurt smaller businesses and is also in part tax payer funded in respect to it's infrastructure." "hate the game, not the player." I don't buy that.It doesn't make sense. Same could apply to rapists,criminals,politicians,soldiers,terrorists etc. "if you still target out businesses that are simply playing by the dirty rules that are given," That's not an excuse.There are businesses who get by fine without them and also I was referring mostly to businesses who received massive principles such as huge subsidies or military contracts. "then you are still playing into their rather childish anti-rich/anti-business sentiments." That's rather simplistic view if you think anti- corporatist business = anti-rich/anti-business. Rothbard certainly did not think so.Robert Higgs certainly does not think so. This is a major part of our philosophy. It that aspect makes us in part or in whole 'leftist' then so be it.Corporatism is the prevailing regime of our times.I'm not saying we should oppose all businesses no matter what.I'm just saying we should oppose them gaining from statism or even seeking to expand it.That's not strange.It's just applying principles. Furthermore beyond libertarianism, I would say corporations are not exempt from morality e.g. in the case of weapon manufacturers who know who the weapons are going to and what purpose or what likely purpose. " not the players who have to go through these hoops to scrape out a living." This is only one aspect. Also I do not see any sign that players have to go through hoops to scrap a living when the state so quickly hands out corporate welfare. "However these critiques can at times go too far in denouncing all environmentalism as statist or socialist" "outside of arbitors making rulings on whether or not someone's pollution has harmed another's property, what environmental techniques are not statist or socialist?" Buying up property.Voluntary organizations dedicated to cleaning up rivers,homesteading the sea etc.This is all mentioned in free market environmentalist literature.It's a major part of libertarianism. I'm not quite sure I understand what your getting at. "Whether or not you believe in AGW this cannot cloud your mind to the fact that because we live on this planet our acts on the environment affect other people.We must come to see that though typically Environmentalism is Eco-centric,misanthropic and anti-market ,that it need not be so." "Kumbaya Save The Whales Kumbaya" That's exactly why other people do not take us seriously and view us as cold.Sure you can be libertarian and not care about the environment excepting when pollution etc violates rights or aggresses.But Libertarianism shows us a different kind of environmentalism. "but what we don't cover enough is how the state harms the poor. if we wish to show we are not (as some non-libertarians belief wrongly) cold hearted or "anarchists for the rich".We need to show two sides to the coin which is how it occurs in reality,that the state both privileges and at the same time harms the poor." anyhow, my response is generally a big, Rothbardian 'so what?' Somehow I don't think that's the correct response. "what 'progress' can be made by pandering to flimsy emotivst &#*@s?" Nothing emotivist about caring for poor people or any people for that matter.Again your coming off cold and heartless. "why would you ever think convincing someone who makes a "Oh Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children" argument will accomplish anything?" Who's to say it couldn't? I'm not saying that one argument alone could win someone over but it does show we do have solutions.We don't just shrug things off. "Those Socialists who are anarchist and willing to accept our stance on non aggression should be ,for anti-statist purposes, our allies." "so naive it hurts." I disagree. All I've gotten from you is that ,these people reject some of our ideas therefore "ahhh scary"! Really not helpful. "anyhow. as I said earlier, anarcho-capitslism, libertarianism, accepting responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, etc. will never, ever, ever, be popular ideas." Accepting consequences for one's actions IS a popular idea already.It's just not applied consistently. " sure, being a demagogue" I haven't argued for that.I've said we need to show we have solutions but that we shouldn't make it up and that they are just applications of our principles. "and yelling 'SOLIDARITY BROTHERS' may work when convincing the ignorant poor that they should be given things for free," I've never said anything about that. " and as you can't do that, you aren't going to be able to engage the vast majority of humans on a level they find acceptable." Your forgetting what Rothbard said.He knew that and what did he say in reply? People are interested in moral arguments(but also practical ones) These are the questions that again and again we are asked. "and what makes you think that increasing our numbers will do anything?" Make us have a larger voice.More people to do what we do now.Debate.Educate.argue.protest.Appear in books,magazines,radio,tv. Look how libertarianism has grew from being little known to at least mentioned in numerous people even if only briefly and even if only derisively in the main. " what you do NOT do is put up a booth in between the holistic medicine stand and the sds registration table and try to grab walk-bys." Why not? " and wealthy, entrepenurial, principled men" I don't think that JUST those types of people will be involved. ("the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain" Into what exactly?
"Alliances: Without suggesting that we betray principles(which was never my intent) I think we should be more open to alliances and collaborations with other groups on an issue by issue basis."
no. have you ever seen these professional protestors or gone to any of their events. a protest against, say, raising student loans will draw crap from feminism, free palistine, legalize marijuana, end drilling, outlaw eating meat etc. do you really want to add libertarianism to this hodge-podge joke of ideas. you won't be making a stand, you will just be out there rubbing one out with the rest of the malcontents.
(All rather cynical.Why shouldn't libertarians be part of things such as these when they are applications of our principles.)
"In the past Rothbard aligned with the left on war and peace and today I think we should seek to do the same."
there's a reason the rothbardians stopped all that nonsense.
(True.However just because it failed at a specific moment in time does not mean it's impossible.Take for example Anti.war.com, not everyone there is libertarian yet they work together for peace ,oppose empire etc.)
"To clarify ,in seeking alliances we should neither be universally and unconditionally supportive nor universally and unconditionally opposed."
if you have principes, that'll be a difficult thing to live up to.
(My principles do not require me to oppose leftwing anarchists who truly oppose the state and aggression.They lead me to seek to ally with such people.There's nothing in our principles that opposes that)
"Considering specifically Anarcho-Libertarianism ,this is a brilliant possibility which hasn't really been tried before.We could seek an alliance with other anarchists"
...something tells me you haven't talked to many non-capitalist anarchists. I'll save you the time by telling you no, it's a horrible idea and there is no point in the attempt.
(I've talked to a few left anarchists.Granted it hasn't always gone well.But in so far as we are anarchists we've had common ground)
"This too would help aid our mainstream public image."
anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism will never, ever, ever, ever under any circumstances be popular with the public or a majority.
(I can see why you might think that.However we just can't know)
"Who knows we might just learn something new."
my money is on 'no, I won't learn anything new.'
(Impossible to know.So your saying you won't learn of a new commonality? or individual both groups like? or idea we agree on or etc...
"We must get out of the habit of talking of the economy today and in history as though it has been laissez faire,capitalist or libertarian."
you need to really stop bandying about that collective pronoun as a) this is not the rev left forums and b) I and most of the people who have anything to do with LvMI don't talk of the economy as if we have a free market.
( My apologies in regard to (a). As for (B) well I have seem some equate Capitalism(which I assume means the same as a free market) with the current economy intermittently with calling it Corporatism or Socialism.Which is confusing and contradictory.
"So it is a grave error for us to talk of the glories of Capitalism in raising the average person's living standards.Instead we should talk of the market"
"if someone is so much of a simpleton that the difference between a successful or unsuccessful conversion to libertarianism is whether I use the word capitalism or speak vaguely of markets...well...that's not somone I really feel that will contribute in any way to progressing the ideas of economic freedom."
But If you mistakenly call what we have today Capitalism and then claim we are for Capitalism (as in a free market) then your sending out mixed messages.It's a problem though thankfully not a big one.
"we should also acknowledge that Wal-mart is involved in eminent domain,lobbying for laws which hurt smaller businesses and is also in part tax payer funded in respect to it's infrastructure."
"hate the game, not the player."
I don't buy that.It doesn't make sense.
Same could apply to rapists,criminals,politicians,soldiers,terrorists etc.
"if you still target out businesses that are simply playing by the dirty rules that are given,"
That's not an excuse.There are businesses who get by fine without them and also I was referring mostly to businesses who received massive principles such as huge subsidies or military contracts.
"then you are still playing into their rather childish anti-rich/anti-business sentiments."
That's rather simplistic view if you think anti- corporatist business = anti-rich/anti-business.
Rothbard certainly did not think so.Robert Higgs certainly does not think so.
This is a major part of our philosophy. It that aspect makes us in part or in whole 'leftist' then so be it.Corporatism is the prevailing regime of our times.I'm not saying we should oppose all businesses no matter what.I'm just saying we should oppose them gaining from statism or even seeking to expand it.That's not strange.It's just applying principles.
Furthermore beyond libertarianism, I would say corporations are not exempt from morality e.g. in the case of weapon manufacturers who know who the weapons are going to and what purpose or what likely purpose.
" not the players who have to go through these hoops to scrape out a living."
This is only one aspect.
Also I do not see any sign that players have to go through hoops to scrap a living when the state so quickly hands out corporate welfare.
"However these critiques can at times go too far in denouncing all environmentalism as statist or socialist"
"outside of arbitors making rulings on whether or not someone's pollution has harmed another's property, what environmental techniques are not statist or socialist?"
Buying up property.Voluntary organizations dedicated to cleaning up rivers,homesteading the sea etc.This is all mentioned in free market environmentalist literature.It's a major part of libertarianism.
I'm not quite sure I understand what your getting at.
"Whether or not you believe in AGW this cannot cloud your mind to the fact that because we live on this planet our acts on the environment affect other people.We must come to see that though typically Environmentalism is Eco-centric,misanthropic and anti-market ,that it need not be so."
"Kumbaya Save The Whales Kumbaya"
That's exactly why other people do not take us seriously and view us as cold.Sure you can be libertarian and not care about the environment excepting when pollution etc violates rights or aggresses.But Libertarianism shows us a different kind of environmentalism.
"but what we don't cover enough is how the state harms the poor. if we wish to show we are not (as some non-libertarians belief wrongly) cold hearted or "anarchists for the rich".We need to show two sides to the coin which is how it occurs in reality,that the state both privileges and at the same time harms the poor."
anyhow, my response is generally a big, Rothbardian 'so what?'
Somehow I don't think that's the correct response.
"what 'progress' can be made by pandering to flimsy emotivst &#*@s?"
Nothing emotivist about caring for poor people or any people for that matter.Again your coming off cold and heartless.
"why would you ever think convincing someone who makes a "Oh Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children" argument will accomplish anything?"
Who's to say it couldn't? I'm not saying that one argument alone could win someone over but it does show we do have solutions.We don't just shrug things off.
"Those Socialists who are anarchist and willing to accept our stance on non aggression should be ,for anti-statist purposes, our allies."
"so naive it hurts."
I disagree. All I've gotten from you is that ,these people reject some of our ideas therefore "ahhh scary"! Really not helpful.
"anyhow. as I said earlier, anarcho-capitslism, libertarianism, accepting responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, etc. will never, ever, ever, be popular ideas."
Accepting consequences for one's actions IS a popular idea already.It's just not applied consistently.
" sure, being a demagogue"
I haven't argued for that.I've said we need to show we have solutions but that we shouldn't make it up and that they are just applications of our principles.
"and yelling 'SOLIDARITY BROTHERS' may work when convincing the ignorant poor that they should be given things for free,"
I've never said anything about that.
" and as you can't do that, you aren't going to be able to engage the vast majority of humans on a level they find acceptable."
Your forgetting what Rothbard said.He knew that and what did he say in reply? People are interested in moral arguments(but also practical ones) These are the questions that again and again we are asked.
"and what makes you think that increasing our numbers will do anything?"
Make us have a larger voice.More people to do what we do now.Debate.Educate.argue.protest.Appear in books,magazines,radio,tv. Look how libertarianism has grew from being little known to at least mentioned in numerous people even if only briefly and even if only derisively in the main.
" what you do NOT do is put up a booth in between the holistic medicine stand and the sds registration table and try to grab walk-bys."
Why not?
" and wealthy, entrepenurial, principled men"
I don't think that JUST those types of people will be involved.
("the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain" Into what exactly?
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: I am a... libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger...? I am truly an anarchist, no rulers, no styles, no schools. If it works, and gets us a step closer to a truly free and fair society, and also to colonizing space, I'm with it. In short, I believe in self-determination as the truest path to true freedom, and I find institutionalized violence as destructive of that end.
I am a... libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger...?
I am truly an anarchist, no rulers, no styles, no schools. If it works, and gets us a step closer to a truly free and fair society, and also to colonizing space, I'm with it.
In short, I believe in self-determination as the truest path to true freedom, and I find institutionalized violence as destructive of that end.
What do you mean by "no styles"? how do you conceive of the anarchist community you'd like to live in?
liberty student: If you're consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process? Aren't they just two parties in an exchange? What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business? Nothing in libertarianism requires you to trust or like business as a whole but oppose using force against it. It seems to me you're not inclined to freedom but special interests. Fair Comment. Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution? Gary Chartier - a left libertarian - says that the Free market is redistributionist in that it breaks down wealth gained from privilege granted from the state.I think he has a good point. What is free market about public use for land? I think he means collective ownership in a voluntary sense and that's not anti-libertarian.Just I'm not sure how it'd work.
If you're consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process? Aren't they just two parties in an exchange?
What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business?
Nothing in libertarianism requires you to trust or like business as a whole but oppose using force against it.
It seems to me you're not inclined to freedom but special interests.
Fair Comment.
Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution?
Gary Chartier - a left libertarian - says that the Free market is redistributionist in that it breaks down wealth gained from privilege granted from the state.I think he has a good point.
What is free market about public use for land?
I think he means collective ownership in a voluntary sense and that's not anti-libertarian.Just I'm not sure how it'd work.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: Oh, don't get me wrong. As far as socialism goes; I believe strongly in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and certain forms of welfare (to the proles and lumpen proles). But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else. I hold healthcare and education as a right that the system is trying to rob us of, sometimes I include subsistence as a right as well. I'm very anthrocentric in that regard. I don't see the system trying to rob anyone of it. I am pro-internationalism, as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?) and ergo anti-war and immigration policies. Common ground. I also don't trust a businessman as far as I can smell him. I disagree but ok. I would push for people to set aside land for public use and environmental conservation. Nothing wrong there.Not my idea of a hobby but ok. As far as free market goes; I think Mises, Rothbard, Smith, etc and other free-marketers are largely correct on how economies work (until you get into their politics. But the supposed value-free statements are largely correct imo), and I think communism (abolition of markets) is at least 1000 years in the future (when we have replicators and in such a manner that they are very widespread). I don't believe in forced education. I don't trust institutionalized monopolies on violence. I think tax systems are inherintly unfair; rich people will always find a way to worm out of it. Nothing wrong there. Any tax to me is inhumane, Agreed. especially ones that effect anybody but the wealthiest 5% of a given population. Disagree but ok. I find the state as nothing more than a way for wealthy capitalists (non-derogatory in meaning there lol) to push out competition and secure the markets for their own benefit. You mean Corporatism .
But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else.
I don't see the system trying to rob anyone of it.
I am pro-internationalism,
as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?)
and ergo anti-war and immigration policies.
Common ground.
I disagree but ok.
Nothing wrong there.Not my idea of a hobby but ok.
I don't believe in forced education. I don't trust institutionalized monopolies on violence. I think tax systems are inherintly unfair; rich people will always find a way to worm out of it.
Nothing wrong there.
Any tax to me is inhumane,
Agreed.
especially ones that effect anybody but the wealthiest 5% of a given population.
Disagree but ok.
I find the state as nothing more than a way for wealthy capitalists (non-derogatory in meaning there lol) to push out competition and secure the markets for their own benefit.
You mean Corporatism .
Liberty Student:Ideological compromise is pointless and cowardly.
LOL, it's gonna be a good day, tater.
Forgetting ideology for a minute, the chance of your vote mattering is statistically unlikely. Perhaps going through the motions just makes people feel better, like saying "I love you" at the end of phone calls.
I agree that voting sucks, but hey, the risk/reward analysis is favorable, at least. I don't do it just because it satisfies some frustration that comes with being another's slave, I do it because it's easy and although statistically improbable, I may be able to affect change, at least in part. I'd take (practically) free lotto tickets any day of the week!
If you really want to use the political system, become a politician.
+1 for running for office. Also, keep it local and grassroots. It's much eaier to have your vote count when only few hundred (maybe) or so people vote for city council, or constable, etc.
If you're consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process?
DId I say I trust consumers either? Really, I think there's a certain merit to competition that keeps untrustworthy businessmen in line if they desire long-term profits (repeat customers, etc).
You don't have to be an elite-apologist to favor markets . What about me could not be free market if I favor labor and distrust business? Remember, I favor markets, labor is a part of that.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you there. What are you trying to say?
So, anybody who donates to United Way is anti-free market? Bill Gates giving $7b/yr to his foundation is anti-free market?
What is anti-free market about a wealthy land owner who gives up a portion of his land as a public park?
It seems to me you're wrapping yourself in a lot of labels without actually considering the consistency of any of the correlating ideas, and particularly without considering the consistency of ideas in combination
If I hadn't considered this myself, I would have wanted to say the same thing to you. But I have considered it, and I don't see anything inconsistent about it. I think I remember you saying in another thread, if it's voluntary, it's the market. (might have been someone else, thot it was you)
You say you are against institutionalized coercion, then take a weaker stance on taxation
I said I find any coerced tax inhumane. WHat more do you want? Just because I wouldn't be as against a tax on the top 5%, doesn't mean I'm pro tax. I would still be against it, it just wouldn't be a top priority.
Then follow it up with some of the above, most of which necessitates a tax, or at the minimum, the power to regulate
If a community says to business "we will not buy your products if you can't; take care of environment and workers, make a trustworthy product, etc" is that anti-market? It is a consumer demand, and if a business cannot keep up with that (and is not being coerced) that is not the consumer's fault. That business just apparently didn't fit market demands well enough and had to go.
Like I said, I find a lot of value giving everyone a stable existence. I would not put a gun to your head to make you agree with me, but I would hope you "see the light" (whatever that means).
According to my own interpretation.
But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else
I don't really buy into that argument. They helped me quite a lot. I think there is a certain type of person that this will just become an excuse for laziness for, and that those people stick out like a sore thumb. But I grew up pretty poor (wheter you agree or not LS) and most of the people I know who recieved assistance put it to good use, and are not really poor anymore. More like lower middle class.
Do you have student loans to pay?
I don't believe in borders. But yes, I try to look at issues globally (which is why I don't think afghan is a just war, google cia supports mujahadin).
Yes
Jackson LaRose:LOL, it's gonna be a good day, tater.
:)
Jackson LaRose:I agree that voting sucks, but hey, the risk/reward analysis is favorable, at least. I don't do it just because it satisfies some frustration that comes with being another's slave, I do it because it's easy and although statistically improbable, I may be able to affect change, at least in part. I'd take (practically) free lotto tickets any day of the week!
Opportunity costs, nothing is free.
Jackson LaRose:+1 for running for office. Also, keep it local and grassroots. It's much eaier to have your vote count when only few hundred (maybe) or so people vote for city council, or constable, etc.
All politics is local.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:You don't have to be an elite-apologist to favor markets .
This is why you don't get ancap. You think it is, to quote Scott Horton, "the white man's anarchism"
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:What about me could not be free market if I favor labor and distrust business? Remember, I favor markets, labor is a part of that.
Which means you implicitly disfavor one half of the transaction.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I'm sorry, I don't follow you there. What are you trying to say?
You don't seem to favor the market as a process producing voluntary outcomes.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:So, anybody who donates to United Way is anti-free market? Bill Gates giving $7b/yr to his foundation is anti-free market?
That is charity, not socialism.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I said I find any coerced tax inhumane. WHat more do you want? Just because I wouldn't be as against a tax on the top 5%, doesn't mean I'm pro tax. I would still be against it, it just wouldn't be a top priority.
Taxation is theft and backed by coercion. Again, you pick and choose who deserves justice, and you do it arbitrarily, what seems like being based on marxian class analysis, which is a distortion of libertarian class analysis.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:If a community says to business "we will not buy your products if you can't; take care of environment and workers, make a trustworthy product, etc" is that anti-market?
Of course not, but I am into methodological individualism. Communities don't make decisions, individuals do.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:It is a consumer demand, and if a business cannot keep up with that (and is not being coerced) that is not the consumer's fault. That business just apparently didn't fit market demands well enough and had to go.
I am all for that.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Like I said, I find a lot of value giving everyone a stable existence.
Then be prepared to pay for it all by yourself because no one else is obligated to pay for it, including the rich.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: What do you mean by "no styles"? how do you conceive of the anarchist community you'd like to live in? According to my own interpretation. Would you be willing to explain it more? But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else I don't really buy into that argument. They helped me quite a lot. I think there is a certain type of person that this will just become an excuse for laziness for, and that those people stick out like a sore thumb. But I grew up pretty poor (wheter you agree or not LS) and most of the people I know who recieved assistance put it to good use, and are not really poor anymore. More like lower middle class. In my experience it creates an incentive to become dependent.Sure some people will manage to overcome those incentives but I think it's rare and in any case creates the thought in poorer people often that the state cares about them or wants to help them which is false. I don't see the system trying to rob anyone of it. Do you have student loans to pay? No.I don't see the state trying to 'rob' people of welfare.I seem it more and more willing to give it.Corporate welfare is just one aspect of the general welfare. as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?) I don't believe in borders. But yes, I try to look at issues globally (which is why I don't think afghan is a just war, google cia supports mujahadin). I agree with you on this.I think most libertarians do. You mean Corporatism . Yes
Would you be willing to explain it more?
In my experience it creates an incentive to become dependent.Sure some people will manage to overcome those incentives but I think it's rare and in any case creates the thought in poorer people often that the state cares about them or wants to help them which is false.
No.I don't see the state trying to 'rob' people of welfare.I seem it more and more willing to give it.Corporate welfare is just one aspect of the general welfare.
I agree with you on this.I think most libertarians do.
I can see one issue that can bring together anarchists in a local, grass roots way: Abandoned housing. State ownership of unused property is one devastating problem of social utility. Getting capitalist and socialist groups together to get these houses and properties torn down, rebuilt, bought/sold, used as shelters run by anarcho- socialist organizations, etc., would show that anarchy ( in any aspect ) can get things done and improve public and private welfare. The primary goal would be to get it out of the state's control.
If it would happen on a wide scale, certain philosophical differences would matter less than showing the state's incompetence and aggression to others that believe in the state.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Civil rights would probably be the easiest ways to bring anarchists together. Find me an anarchist who's pro gun laws, pro drug laws, and pro police.
Actually, I think it is the rich man's anarchism. But I don't hate, if you want to live in a peaceful cooperative society, so do I compadre
Which means you implicitly disfavor one half of the transaction
It's not like I trust labor that much either, like I said, anyone with an agenda is suspect imo. But labor definitely has the lesser bargaining power. It's not like I'm anti any business, just the one's that don't care about their workers, or if applicable, their consumers. I have seen many members on this page claim that workers should just take what they get, yet I don't see anyone decrying them for "implicitly disfavor(ing) one half of the transaction."
You don't seem to favor the market as a process producing voluntary outcomes
How so? If I didn't put a gun to an employers head, but still convinced him to raise wages, are you saying that was involuntary?
That is charity, not socialism
The only difference is the means
Libertarian rightists have a class analysis? I was not aware.
And I agree that taxes are stealing. But like I said, if the tax was only on the top 5%, I would still be against it, I would just find them highly likely to be able to pay it w/o harming them too much, and it wouldn't be a top priority for me.
Communities don't make decisions, individuals do.
Agreed, but individuals do make decisions as communities. To deny this would be to deny reality. Collectives don't act, but people do frequently act in collectives. And if a community gets together as individuals and decides they will not patronize companies that do not meet x expectations, I do not find that anti-market in any way.
Then be prepared to pay for it all by yourself because no one else is obligated to pay for it, including the rich
I am. Once again, would not put a gun to your head and force you to agree with me.
Just to throw it in there.
Egoism != the free market. Done.
3 Free territories in unused land in the USA
1 for ancaps
1 for non-propertarian anarchists
1 for me
It advantages all 3 groups, so we can form a coalition and stop fighting with eachother.
Liberty Student:Almost everyone is an anarchist in some domain
^ This
I'm quite a deist, but I disagree with intelligent design. So I'm not of the school of Deism. I'm kind of a socialist, but I disagree with Marx on a lot of things, and I don't find the "dictatorship of the proletariat" very appealing, so not really of any school of Socialism.
Bruce Lee once said:
You see actually I do not teach Karate, because I do not believe in styles anymore. I do not believe that there is a chinese way of fighting, or a japanese way of fighting, or whatever way of fighting. Because, unless human being have 3 arms and 4 legs... we will have a different way of fighting. But basically, we have only 2 hands and 2 feet. So styles tends to uh, uh, uh, not only seperate man.. you know, because they have their own doctrines, and then the doctrines became the gospel truth...but if you do not have styles, if you just say "here I am as a human being. How can I express myself.. totally, and completely." You won't create a style... and that way, it is (now) a process of continuing growth.
I think that, if you understand the meat of it, pretty much sums it up. To say "oh, I'm a conservative (or whatever), and then later "i'm a minimalist," and only later to go, "no, libertarian," AND YET AGAIN go "ahhh, there it is, I'm an an-cap, austrian, libertarian, voluntaryist, propertarian" is not really productive. (I use this assuming there are many here who followed a similar path) Instead, why not just be a person that learned things over time?
First, I don't think you're going to find a lot of "yay government" down in the ghetto lol. They may be like "don't touch my food stamps sucker," but I seem to remember a strong "F the police" amongst urban culture. Dave Chappel; "If I see George Bush I'll kick his m'f'in a** for cuttin my medicaid!"
And I don't neccesarily think it's the state, or Bill Gates (who, actually I always point out is a great guy if you learn about him) or anything like that infinging upon our right to education and healthcare. It's our civilized system. It has currently proved far to expensive to fulfill people's desire and provide universal education. All that needs to change is people's minds about just how much they need, a large gap to leap, but I see a lot of progress over the last 500 years towards that end (not just including mandatory education which I am absolutely adamant against)
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: Libertarian rightists have a class analysis? I was not aware.
Oh yeah.It's been part of our tradition and the classical liberal tradition for centuries.
It began as far as we know from the french classical liberals Charles Comte,Charles Dunoyer and Augustin Thierry who devised it in the Le Censur Europe.The theory was called Industralism.
It was continued and clarified through the ages by such figures as Bastiat,Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock ,Thomas Paine etc.
Albert Jay Nock gave us one of the clearest explanations of it based on terminology from Franz Oppenheimer's book the state.Murray Rothbard UUsed this terminology to explain the class analysis too.
We see the state as resulting in two classes: The Exploited and the Exploiters.
The Exploiters: The state and it's agencies like the police,military etc. They gain wealth by what Oppenheimer called the Political Means( via force).They are the few and the rulers.
The Exploited: The few.They are the ruled.They gain their wealth via the Economic Means(which is aquisition of wealth by trade on the voluntary market)
Nuanced Approaches(and I'm certainly in favour of them) complicate the picture by allowing for a class which lives by the Political means but is not actually involved in using force to gain the wealth.They benefit from the Exploiter class.These would be group who receive corporate welfare,those on the welfare state etc.
Also We allow for some overlap between Those gaining from exploiters and those exploited.Few people are solely in one or the other class due to the widespread granting of privileges by the state.
As Hans Hermann Hoppe says Libertarian Anarchists are for a classless society i.e. a society where because there is no state there is no exploiters or exploited and everyone gains wealth by the economic means.
Here are a few links on the topic:-
Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis By Hans Hermann Hoppe.
Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes
CLASSICAL LIBERAL EXPLOITATION THEORY: A COMMENT ON PROFESSOR LIGGIO'S PAPER CHARLES DUNOYER AND FRENCH CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
Charles Dunoyer
Class Society.
Class Struggle Rightly Conceived By Sheldon Richman.
...Oh and I forgot to mention generally libertarians hold that society is controlled by ideas.The controlling ideological group is the Court intellectuals as Rothbard called them and is composed of pro-state sociologists,economists,political theorists,philosophers and the media.Essentially the opinion moulders of society.In a sense this is just consistent Gramscianism.They try hard to propagandize society with anti-market, anti-anarchy,pro-state,pro-obedience rhetoric.
My strategy is often to argue for liberty without using liberty. To be sure; I'm a 'natural law'-libertarian, i.e. I think there is something morally right which can be objectively determined by analyzing human nature as such in 'liberty' and I think an institution like the state is morally wrong. But as a general strategy; I often employ other means.
I'll give a few examples.
- I argue for the meta-discussion on democracy; pointing out that 'democracy' as such isn't really a good decision making procedure. (Fostering rational irrationality, rational ignorance, etc. etc.)
- I argue that even if you accept the state; that there might be an argument for smaller states. (Not federalism; but literally; more states on a lower level, to increase thiebout competition in the world.) If you want to have democracy; than it makes sense to make decisions like that on a lower level, with fewer people, etc. I even posit the question: 'why not city states'? And argue from there. Obviously; standard arguments arise, but they are relatively easier to counter and to say 'well; we could have a confederalist level of state for those issues'. A lot of the issues can be solved like that and it puts a lot of the really hard questions between brackets.
- Another example is pointing out the redistribution from the rich to the poor, the powerless to the powerfull, etc. in the current system. Having empirical data that proves that the poor get less social/economic/political protection and representation often helps. Also; when they assert 'well; this obviously helps the poor' I ask them for the data. Often there is no data that proves it. (And when there is, I have no problem accepting it.)
- In general; I emphasize often the meta-structure, than the concrete. 'Instead of me explaining how anarchism would work; how do you think it would work?' And when they really give a bad assessment; I just ask questions. 'Well; given those (implicit) assumptions and mechanisms, why doesn't it happen now?' Or something like that.
Admittedly; I'm more of a 'step by step' libertarian, more than a 'well; I'll argue for anarcho-capitalism from the start and let's see how I can convince him to take the whole step at once!' Often - but not always - this doesn't really help.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Scott F:Oh and I forgot to mention generally libertarians hold that society is controlled by ideas.
Which is why we need to reject any ideology as truth. Yay!
(Warning: The preceding was shameless propoganda)
Jackson LaRose: Scott F:Oh and I forgot to mention generally libertarians hold that society is controlled by ideas. Which is why we need to reject any ideology as truth. Yay! (Warning: The preceding was shameless propoganda) Only ideas which benefit the state i.e. either directly in giving it the veil of legitimacy or making it seem like it actually works or should do x. this doesn't mean all ideas are evil or false,even if society is dominated by ideas,which it is.
Only ideas which benefit the state i.e. either directly in giving it the veil of legitimacy or making it seem like it actually works or should do x.
this doesn't mean all ideas are evil or false,even if society is dominated by ideas,which it is.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:This is why you don't get ancap. You think it is, to quote Scott Horton, "the white man's anarchism" Actually, I think it is the rich man's anarchism.
Actually, I think it is the rich man's anarchism.
But the rich man in an ancap society is the perfect servant for everyone else. See, this goes back to not understanding praxeology and Austrian-ish market theory. If you did and disagreed, I could understand it. But you're not even addressing what wealth is or where it comes from. You assume ancap is an extension of the current order, not a radically different one.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:You don't seem to favor the market as a process producing voluntary outcomes How so? If I didn't put a gun to an employers head, but still convinced him to raise wages, are you saying that was involuntary?
Do you feel that an employer demanding more work from his employees for the same or less pay is just?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:That is charity, not socialism The only difference is the means
Not at all. The ends are very different as well. Charity is a voluntary exchange, socialism isn't.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Then be prepared to pay for it all by yourself because no one else is obligated to pay for it, including the rich I am. Once again, would not put a gun to your head and force you to agree with me.
Then why would taxes on the rich be more ok with you than taxes on everyone?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Communities don't make decisions, individuals do. Agreed, but individuals do make decisions as communities. To deny this would be to deny reality. Collectives don't act, but people do frequently act in collectives. And if a community gets together as individuals and decides they will not patronize companies that do not meet x expectations, I do not find that anti-market in any way.
And if the shareholders of a firm get together and decide to boycott a customer group, like say midgets, blacks, women or Jews, you would also be ok with that too, right?
liberty student:This is why you don't get ancap. You think it is, to quote Scott Horton, "the white man's anarchism"
Do you recall where he said that? A radio interview you can link, perhaps? Sounds like an interesting discussion.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
StrangeLoop:Do you recall where he said that? A radio interview you can link, perhaps? Sounds like an interesting discussion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/07/159-war-and-central-banking/
It's somewhere in the second half iirc.
I was deeply impressed with this statement of truth. I particularly appreciate the distinction between the academic, cererbral libertarianism that is heavily present in our modern libertatrian movement, and the plain, honest, instinctive desire for most people to naturally want to do what's right, and for the right reasons.
They are the same thing.
The lacking element in libertarianism's past is the rosetta stone that we now have the chance to implement today: a clear, defined way to translate our ideas instantly to the large majority of populations with different cultural norms--and make no mistake that that's exactly what they are: ours (libertarians) is a distinctly different philosophy. We have to relate to other worldviews in a way that speaks their language, or we are never understood because they think we are talking about something academic and not viceral--real.
I admire the discussions in this long, well-spoken thread. Please continue to spell out your thoughts-- we are at work to make libertarianism clear as the only true unique link to every human being on the planet--in the only language we are all capable of speaking. It's the language of safety through cooperation (be it cooperation with your surrounding environment (to allow you to survive) or the cooperation between a team of engineers (to allow the purely intellectual ideas to become a technological feat of world-changing proportions.) Every human, from the African plains to the Nordic mountains, from the islands of Japan to the streets of Boise, Idaho--every man and women, and every child (remember, you still need to guide and train your kids) has, at the core of our shared humanity, the desire for these basic, fundamental desires/directives.
I hope we all continue to think deeply on our motivations, and use our newfound ability to share it with each other like never before possible. I firmly believe every person on the planet wants exactly what we want-- we only have to show her the pictures that explain to her that when we think of free-exchange, we're thinking of the same networks of support, safety, science, and cultural growth she values through the ultimate Big-Business Monopoly: Government.
Think about our government as a modern company providing services-- it's not hard. Find ways to analogise how government is like a man that is declaring he can simultaneously give you a root canal, cut your hair, drive your car, decide on your education and direction, and fight off armed bandits hiding under your bed.
Is there any one company on the planet you would trust all of that to? Of course not--it's bizarre, even absurd to imagine any company you pick attempting to do all of thise things--and thousands more.
Until you call your company "Government".
We can share these truths with people. We should dial back the academic arguments once we've learned them ourselves, save to study for our expanded enjoyment and understanding, and use a different set of skills to relate these ideas to that vast majority of people that doesn't understand our world-view. They believe in it--they just don't "get it".
Our interpersonal communication skills are better employed than our facts and logic with our infinitely simple but abstract natural-law truths.
Why an I knocking our wonderful academic discourse? I am absolutely not. I just believe there is a much better way to explain all we believe in in a way that everone from a 99-year-old WWII veteran to a Twelve year-old tween will instinctively understand.
We all want the exact same thing. Safety, peace, and cooperation from our surroundings and cohabitants.
May we all keep up the good work in spreading our ideas and our unwavering commitment to peace--
m
"All rather cynical.Why shouldn't libertarians be part of things such as these when they are applications of our principles."
because libertarian ideology will be further muddled in with the tripe one sees at those events.
"True.However just because it failed at a specific moment in time does not mean it's impossible.Take for example Anti.war.com, not everyone there is libertarian yet they work together for peace ,oppose empire etc."
and how effective are they being at ending an actual war?
"My principles do not require me to oppose leftwing anarchists who truly oppose the state and aggression.They lead me to seek to ally with such people.There's nothing in our principles that opposes that"
allying with them and doing what, exactly?
"I've talked to a few left anarchists.Granted it hasn't always gone well.But in so far as we are anarchists we've had common ground"
as they will invariably view capitalism and private property as odious as the idea of the state, no, you have not had any real common ground.
"I can see why you might think that.However we just can't know"
the evidence is overwhelming, and I mean OVERWHELMING, that the masses will never choose a system which requires them to accept responsibility for their actions, regardless of the potential benefits.
"Impossible to know.So your saying you won't learn of a new commonality? or individual both groups like? or idea we agree on or etc..."
yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
"My apologies in regard to (a). As for (B) well I have seem some equate Capitalism(which I assume means the same as a free market) with the current economy intermittently with calling it Corporatism or Socialism.Which is confusing and contradictory."
because we're speaking amongst austrians and we know what we mean. the second an outsider wanders in, the semantics get cleaned up.
"I don't buy that.It doesn't make sense.
Same could apply to rapists,criminals,politicians,soldiers,terrorists etc."
you're talking about walmart using eminent domain or about a company suing another for branding issues. these are people who are trying to do business in a crooked and over-regulated market. you can't blame them for playing dirty because everyone else is.
a rapist does not have to rape to get laid whereas a business has to push out a large chunk of their potential workforce due to minimum wage laws. a terrorist doesn't have to kill civilians to protest whereas a business has to sue upstarts with a similar name to protect against future lawsuits claiming it didn't protect its brand.
"That's not an excuse.There are businesses who get by fine without them"
name one.
"That's rather simplistic view if you think anti- corporatist business = anti-rich/anti-business."
when it comes to the left, especially the so-called left-anarchists, the ideas go hand in hand.
"in the case of weapon manufacturers who know who the weapons are going to and what purpose or what likely purpose."
...what crime did they commit? are they guilty of murder? what if they are only really sure the guns will go to, say, support a genocide. are they still guilty? what if they are only kinda sure?
"Also I do not see any sign that players have to go through hoops to scrap a living when the state so quickly hands out corporate welfare."
only to certain industries and certain political donors.
"Buying up property.Voluntary organizations dedicated to cleaning up rivers,homesteading the sea etc.This is all mentioned in free market environmentalist literature.It's a major part of libertarianism.
I'm not quite sure I understand what your getting at."
I was talking about a situations where one party feels another is being environmentally destructive in either the sense that his actions are harming another's property or are some vague affront to mother gaia, not about how people who like nature can protect it in a free market.
"That's exactly why other people do not take us seriously and view us as cold."
I am cold. save your emotivist blubbering for the patchouli drenched, hairy armpitted left-anarchist women. it doesn't go far with me.
"Somehow I don't think that's the correct response. "
if we're discussing ethics, it is. why should I have to continually bow to people's anti-business misconceptions if my logic is airtight?
" Nothing emotivist about caring for poor people or any people for that matter.Again your coming off cold and heartless."
you're pretty much screaming 'oh but what about the children.' that's as emotivist as it gets. again, save it.
"Who's to say it couldn't? I'm not saying that one argument alone could win someone over but it does show we do have solutions.We don't just shrug things off."
our solutions fly in the face of those kinds of problems. when someone gets all womanly and starts moaning about the poor and the sick and the yadda yadda yadda, they don't want to hear anything accept for paternalistic bs. you can go on and on about the benefits of dropping minimum wage or allowing workplace discrimination, but it won't 'feel' right to them. and as these creatures are driven by their emotions, using logic will be wholly ineffectual.
"I disagree. All I've gotten from you is that ,these people reject some of our ideas therefore "ahhh scary"! Really not helpful."
they reject the core of our ideas.
"Make us have a larger voice.More people to do what we do now.Debate.Educate.argue.protest.Appear in books,magazines,radio,tv. Look how libertarianism has grew from being little known to at least mentioned in numerous people even if only briefly and even if only derisively in the main."
and what progress has been made?
"Why not?"
because you want to set up shop in a bs market. people who pick up your idealogy amongst the other fringe and usually silly beliefs that you find at these 'alliances' are fickle and ignorant. they can contribute little more than incorrectly parroting something ron paul said and turning more people off.
"I don't think that JUST those types of people will be involved. "
it is.
"("the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain" Into what exactly?"
the first nation that was formed around the idea that men have natural rights not given by government or a monarch. it wasn't very successful, but it was much more of a step forward than any grassroots save the whales rally will ever take.
But the rich man in an ancap society is the perfect servant for everyone else.
I get that he is subject to consumer demands. But my problem is that purchasing power is not a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. If 99% of the people are against something, and the remaining 1% control the purchasing power, that thing is very likely to go through anyway. Perhaps there is an answer to this, or it is an incorrect view, idk.
See, this goes back to not understanding praxeology and Austrian-ish market theory. If you did and disagreed, I could understand it.
I try to understand a little more everyday. What more can one ask?
But you're not even addressing what wealth is or where it comes from.
Let me try; wealth is created by entrepeneurs taking risk to meet consumer demand. Overproduction (producing more than what the original producer would need) and the concurrent trade of said items garner said entrepreneur a profit. He can then reinvest this profit into his company, expanding the capital. Close?
Do you feel that an employer demanding more work from his employees for the same or less pay is just? If the circumstances deem fit. If a business loses money, it goes out of buiness. It's better to have a low-paying job, than none at all. I live but 3 miles from the factory where the build the Cruise. The local UAW has taken pay cuts 3 years in a row. It's not like they want these places to go out of business. They just want their fair share.
Not at all. The ends are very different as well. Charity is a voluntary exchange, socialism isn't. I think this shows a general lack of understanding of genuine socialist theory. Not all Socialists are Marxist/Leninists (Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, things like that are developed from this school), not even all Marxists are (and not all socialists are marxists).
Years later, another prominent anarcho-syndicalist emphasized the main lesson of the Russian experience: In Russia… where the so-called “proletarian dictatorship” has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a particular party for political power have prevented any truly socialistic reconstruction of economy and have forced the country into the slavery of a grinding state-capitalism. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which naïve souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, transition stage to real Socialism, has today grown into a frightful despotism and a new imperialism, which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in nothing. The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke.2 Here, in brief, is the historical verdict passed on Marxism by anarchism
Years later, another prominent anarcho-syndicalist emphasized the main lesson of the Russian experience:
In Russia… where the so-called “proletarian dictatorship” has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a particular party for political power have prevented any truly socialistic reconstruction of economy and have forced the country into the slavery of a grinding state-capitalism. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which naïve souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, transition stage to real Socialism, has today grown into a frightful despotism and a new imperialism, which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in nothing. The assertion that the state must continue to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of all historical experience, almost like a bad joke.2
Here, in brief, is the historical verdict passed on Marxism by anarchism
Marx's views on the capitalist-state (as he called it. What you would refer to as the democratic state);
Far from seeing the state as a neutral arbiter that served to realize individual freedom, Marx considered the state to be a sphere of social life not only separate from, but also opposed to civil society. For Marx, this contradiction between the state and civil society is characteristic of a society divided against itself, in which the functions of government are administered against society. Marx writes, “The ‘police’, the ‘judiciary’, and the ‘administration’ are not the representatives of a civil society which administers its own universal interests in them and through them; they are the representatives of the state and their task is to administer the state against civil society.”5 Furthermore, the idea of the general interest of all citizens being realized within the bourgeois state was a fiction to begin with. Firstly, the “bureaucrats,” who perform state activities, use the general powers of the state to pursue their own particular interests within the state hierarchy. Marx writes, “As for the individual bureaucrat, the purpose of the state becomes his private purpose, a hunt for promotion, careerism
"The separation of the political state from civil society takes the form of a separation of the deputies from their electors. Society simply deputes elements of itself to become its political existence. There is a twofold contradiction: (1) A formal contradiction. The deputies of civil society are a society which is not connected to its electors by any ‘instruction’ or commission. They have a formal authorization but as soon as this becomes real they cease to be authorized. They should be deputies but they are not. (2) A material contradiction. In respect to actual interests . . . Here we find the converse. They have authority as representatives of public affairs, whereas in reality they represent particular interests" ~Marx
This isn't neccesarily a defense of marxism on my part, he does refer to the transitionary phase (dicattorship of the proletariat) as the people as a whole using the state to abolish the state (abolition of private ownership of the means of production and the standing army, all that). I'm just saying, the way you are characterizing socialism refers most specifically to marxist-leninism.
It's not more ok. Taxes are disgusting. But I am not a dictator, and some people do not share my/our views on taxes. So, It has just regressed down the chain of my priorities for practical reasons.
No, that would be disgusting. But I would not aim missiles at them and give them an ultimatum. I would protest and boycott said businesses, but you can't hate the hate out of someone.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:But the rich man in an ancap society is the perfect servant for everyone else. I get that he is subject to consumer demands. But my problem is that purchasing power is not a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. If 99% of the people are against something, and the remaining 1% control the purchasing power, that thing is very likely to go through anyway. Perhaps there is an answer to this, or it is an incorrect view, idk.
Q. But how did that 1% get their purchasing power? A. By satisfying the needs of the 99%.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:See, this goes back to not understanding praxeology and Austrian-ish market theory. If you did and disagreed, I could understand it. I try to understand a little more everyday. What more can one ask?
Fair enough.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:But you're not even addressing what wealth is or where it comes from. Let me try; wealth is created by entrepeneurs taking risk to meet consumer demand. Overproduction (producing more than what the original producer would need) and the concurrent trade of said items garner said entrepreneur a profit. He can then reinvest this profit into his company, expanding the capital. Close?
Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased. Sometimes I get the impression you see wealth creation as a zero sum game in which there are winners (capitalists) and losers (consumers). This view is common, but not correct.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Not at all. The ends are very different as well. Charity is a voluntary exchange, socialism isn't. I think this shows a general lack of understanding of genuine socialist theory. Not all Socialists are Marxist/Leninists (Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, things like that are developed from this school), not even all Marxists are (and not all socialists are marxists).
I think this shows a general lack of understanding of genuine socialist theory. Not all Socialists are Marxist/Leninists (Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, things like that are developed from this school), not even all Marxists are (and not all socialists are marxists).
Your long quote did nothing to enlighten me about how socialism is voluntary.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:And if the shareholders of a firm get together and decide to boycott a customer group, like say midgets, blacks, women or Jews, you would also be ok with that too, right? No, that would be disgusting. But I would not aim missiles at them and give them an ultimatum. I would protest and boycott said businesses, but you can't hate the hate out of someone.
I agree, it wouldn't be very nice, but my point was, they have as much right to boycott customers for whatever reason, as customers have to boycott them. You see a dichotomy between capitalist and consumer. A more nuanced free market view sees them as interchangeable and the differences as mostly aesthetic.
In a hypothetical society. In reality some of that 1% may have. But some of them also recieved there purchasing power through feudal land ownership in europe, state displacement of natives in n. america, and state-capitalist (meaning the capitalists themselves, not the system of capitalism) siezing of native lands in s. america, and if not these direct expropriations of property, then through using state coercion to their benefit. I'm sure asia is no better, but I'm not quite familiar with their history.
Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased.
That's pretty abstract, but ok. I don't see how any wealth is created if I trade you a stuffed bear for a piece of bubble gum (just our subjective desires fulfilled) tho. I think I was talking about how profits are created tho, and not neccesarilly wealth.
Sometimes I get the impression you see wealth creation as a zero sum game in which there are winners (capitalists) and losers (consumers). This view is common, but not correct.
If that were true, I would think we would still be cave-men. I don't follow the school that says one man only gets rich by taking from another man.
Also, a consumer could only be a loser if the product was faulty, or something.
Your long quote did nothing to enlighten me about how socialism is voluntary
My point was that you were mischaracterizing socialism as either marxism, or marxist-leninism. The only non-voluntary part of socialism is in Marx's (as I said, not all socialists are Marxists) transitionary period (dictatorship of the proletariat; democracy) where the people would use the state to abolish the state;
Both Marxism and anarchism, for example, have been influenced by utopian socialism, which was based on voluntary cooperation, without recognition of class conflict. Anarchists are committed to libertarian socialism and they have focused on local organization, including locally managed cooperatives, linked through confederations of unions, cooperatives and communities. Marxists, who as socialists have likewise held and worked for the goal of democratizing productive and reproductive relationships, often placed a greater strategic emphasis on confronting the larger scales of human organization. As they viewed the capitalist class to be prohibitively politically, militarily and culturally mobilized in order to maintain an exploitable working class, they fought in the early 20th century to appropriate from the capitalist class the society's collective political capacity in the form of the state, either through democratic socialism, or through what came to be known as Leninism. Though they regard the state as an unnecessarily oppressive institution, Marxists considered appropriating national and international-scale capitalist institutions and resources (such as the state) to be an important first pillar in creating conditions favorable to solidaristic economies
The question isn't about coercion. It is about whether or not it is coercion to take from a theif (also, are they really thiefs, but that's not the point).
I agree, it wouldn't be very nice, but my point was, they have as much right to boycott customers for whatever reason, as customers have to boycott them. You see a dichotomy between capitalist and consumer. A more nuanced free market view sees them as interchangeable and the differences as mostly aesthetic
I take a more material view of the world. In theory any worker can become a capitalist. In a snapshot, there are many many workers who are not. And even more so who are (capitalists), but not of any real significance until they retire.