Hi everyone, I'm new here. I've been reading most articles on this website and I find them very interesting.
In fact, I really like Ruthbard and Mises and I'm planning on getting some of they're books to check them out in detail.
The thing is, I'm having some irrational doubts. And I have some questions that hopefully someone might clarify them for me.
1. According to some articles on some socialist websites, we should all work for society and depend on it.
That's something I personally find outrageous. The question is why?Why work for society?Why not work for myself?
2. According to them, there's a difference between "possessions" and "property".
It is "wrong" to own capital and produce, but it's "right" for the collective to own property so that we all work together to produce, together.
Question is, who decides whether I can own property or not?And why should they?
3. According to some "anarcho-communists", equality under law is not equality.
Equality, they say, must exist economically.
If I'm not mistaken, everyone must have the same amount of "goods". I think I read somewhere, that without equality there can be no freedom, for they are opposite sides of the same coin.
How am I free when I'm forced to work for my neighbor?
Thank you all those for taking the time to read.
Drew,
As a person influenced by Block, I would say that everyone in society has to respect the Non Aggression Principal and protecting private property, that would be my version of equality because the NAP applies to everyone. Of course to some, this is simply not enough to accomplish ''equality.'' Now some say by advocating hierarchy, I am anti-equality, and i guess if that is how some people interpret equality, then yes, i guess i am anti-equality. Or by advocating discrimination, for example a business putting up a sign that says, "Hispanics keep out" , I am seen as anti-equality, but why? you are free to do whatever you want as long as it abides by the NAP... in fact, I advocate equality better because I have no problem with a business discriminating because all business and individuals in general, are free to do such things.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Thanks for the answer.
I know how stupid this might sound, but here I go.
Which one fo these is equality?
equality under law? or economic equality, sch as class equality, where everyone falls in the same class?
^Don't beat yourself up, it's better to ask then to remain ignorant of such things. Everyones a new at something.
Welcome.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
First of all, you have to remember there really aren't good answers to these questions. That's why those who disagree with collectivist ideology disagree with it. The reasoning is flawed, and the ideas are based in complete fallacies and irrationalities. But I'll do my best to throw out some of the "best" answers...
1. According to some articles on some socialist websites, we should all work for society and depend on it. That's something I personally find outrageous. The question is why?Why work for society?Why not work for myself?
The most common reason for this is revolves around the idea that somehow working for others is more noble...that giving is better than having. This also fits into the whole equality argument. These are all very related. A large part of what it all boils down to is the whole "compassion" ideal...of "everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves." They hold that Mother Theresa is essentially the polar opposite of Bill Gates, simply because she lived in poverty and Gates profits from what he does. Profit is a very negative thing for most leftists because they take it to mean that someone is gaining at the expense of someone else. That is actually another large fallacy that a lot of the false arguments of the left stem from: that life is a zero-sum game...that if one man has more it's because everyone else has less.
2. According to them, there's a difference between "possessions" and "property". It is "wrong" to own capital and produce, but it's "right" for the collective to own property so that we all work together to produce, together. Question is, who decides whether I can own property or not?And why should they?
Depending on the ideology of the person promoting it, it would either be decided by the collective, through majority vote (i.e. rule by mob), or by a ruling elite.
3. According to some "anarcho-communists", equality under law is not equality. Equality, they say, must exist economically. If I'm not mistaken, everyone must have the same amount of "goods". I think I read somewhere, that without equality there can be no freedom, for they are opposite sides of the same coin. How am I free when I'm forced to work for my neighbor?
To answer your question directly, you aren't. That is just another flawed line of thinking they engage in. It's very Orwellian in nature: "Freedom is slavery" kind of stuff. And there really is no such thing as "anarcho-communist", as the communist belief is that eventually the state will no longer be necessary. So in essense, communists are anarchists...it's just a difference of how to get there, in a way.
These tend to be one of two kinds of people: (1) someone who doesn't know how to work for himself, or (2) someone who already has a lot of money and can depend on only the people closest to him. If the only people I knew were my family, I'd probably promote socialism because I love everyone in my family. I know they'll always take care of me if I'm down, and vice versa. Many people don't understand how hard it is to start a company if they're born in a family-run empire. There's nothing wrong with being born into a company or anything since that is a big part of why parents work so hard, but still.
They shouldn't. No one decides it. The non-aggression principle is something upon which all people must act in a libertarian society, or else they'll face punishments for aggressing. Their "difference" between property and possessions is that you can only possess something until someone takes it. In their mind, it's not wrong to take something that belongs to someone else because the item was only temporarily theirs. It's all tricks in semantics in order to allow theft.
The idea of law gets pretty confusing in an anarcho-capitalistic society. I'm still learning about it, but I've been recommended Chaos Theory if you're interested. Equality does exist economically in a free market. Milton Friedman explained economic equality as a concept not whereby everyone finishes the race first, but a concept where everyone starts the race at the same time/length. Everyone having the same amount of goods makes sense to anarcho-communists, but when you ask what they'd do if there were 10 heart-transplant patients and only one heart, they'd probably tell you to split the heart and give each patient 10%. When it comes down to it, they'll contradict themselves because the common sense will be overpowering. Equality doesn't mean being exactly the same. Not to mention the fact that [at least nearly] anarcho-communistic societies in the past such as the pilgrims have either been saved by capitalism or had their inhabitants die.
If you ever talk to an anarcho-communist, tell him or her what voluntaryism means. No anarcho-capitalist will force everyone to live in a capitalistic economy. Capitalism is our preferred choice, but we wouldn't stop a community from voluntarily forming a communal living space. Ask them if they'd do the same and let us be if we don't bother them. If they say they'd extend the same gesture, then they're voluntaryists too. If they wouldn't extend the same gesture, they're just as bad as the State they claim to dislike so very much.
Ditto. People are here will usually be really nice in answering your questions. Some may yell at you for the things you say, but stay on and keep learning. It's worth it.
@drew
what do you mean by 'equality by law?' By that, if you mean the enforcement of NAP and property rights by private police and/or courts then ''equality by law'' is best, but if you something totally different, then please explain. And I also do not get what you mean by ''economic equality." economic equality sounds like something an advocate of a minimum wage, or rent control would say. And I dislike both minimum wage and rent controls because it is anti-market.
Thanks, the answer is much appreciated.
I'll look into that book this week.
This site has a wealth of free books in different formats if your okay with a digital copy.
I noticed that, but I'm planning on buying them.
I prefer reading them in a park somehwere, rather then saying at the computer.
I recommend Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. One of the best introductions into economics.
@Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo
Sorry for missing your answer Izzy.
I've read somewhere, I think it was on a website by some chap name dbo, whose idea of equality means that we all have the same wealth basically.
I know this is absolutely stupid.
I believe in equality under the law. They believe in what I just explained "economic equality".
Without "economic equality", we can not be free. According to them.
I'm not sure on what website I've read it, I think it was on this person called db0 or I think it was a quote from Chomsky.
Again, I'm not familiar with Chomsky's work, but from what I've read about him (libertarian socialism) and some youtube interviews, I'm not sure if I should waste my time, or money, that is.
I don't know exactly whether many socialist on the internet think this way. Fact is, many, if not most people my age believe in wealth redistribution where I come from. They basically hate all those with "more money in they're pockets" and believe we should all have the same wealth.
It's somewhat frightening to know that most "kids" my age believe in this type of thing. Especially where I'm from.
Skip Econ in One Lesson. Go straight to Man, Economy, and State (Rothbard) if you want to do some heavy learning, but if you want a lighter read first, I suggest Economics for Real People (Callahan).
Political Atheists Blog
In my opinion, Chomsky is definitely worth your time. He's very knowledgeable when it comes to foreign policy and historic events. Economics, not so much, but he's a fantastic philosopher of sorts.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: "As a person influenced by Block," Oh geez. Here comes the vulgarism and thinness. "I would say that everyone in society has to respect the Non Aggression Principal and protecting private property," And LL's dont? "that would be my version of equality because the NAP applies to everyone." So you are a KIND of egalitarian? success! "Of course to some, this is simply not enough to accomplish ''equality.'' It's necessary but not sufficient. " Or by advocating discrimination," What does that mean? If it's following Block's example of conflating the legal case for discrimination with the moral one then it leads to a defense of dehumanization like sexism,racism and the like. " you are free to do whatever you want as long as it abides by the NAP.." True but misses the point. " in fact, I advocate equality better because I have no problem with a business discriminating " You don't think it's immoral?
"As a person influenced by Block,"
Oh geez. Here comes the vulgarism and thinness.
"I would say that everyone in society has to respect the Non Aggression Principal and protecting private property,"
And LL's dont?
"that would be my version of equality because the NAP applies to everyone."
So you are a KIND of egalitarian? success!
"Of course to some, this is simply not enough to accomplish ''equality.''
It's necessary but not sufficient.
" Or by advocating discrimination,"
What does that mean? If it's following Block's example of conflating the legal case for discrimination with the moral one then it leads to a defense of dehumanization like sexism,racism and the like.
" you are free to do whatever you want as long as it abides by the NAP.."
True but misses the point.
" in fact, I advocate equality better because I have no problem with a business discriminating "
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.
@Scott, Hello friend, I knew you where going to respond to me. :p...
and LL's dont?
Well, I guess you guys like the NAP but then you add more stuff on top of the NAP to support your ''equality'' views. I say as long as it goes along with the NAP and protecting private property, it is ok, you would not agree there and that is my point.
What? the whole point on my view on Libertarianism is that property rights and NAP apply to everyone, that isnt egalitarian, that is Libertarian.
thats where i disagree with you. Respecting property rights and the NAP is all a society needs
what's wrong with that? people have a right to be sexist, racist, etc. I am not going to tell them that they are lesser people because they are racist or sexist.... As long as they follow the NAP, I do not care what they think or do. you are being unequal by allowing some people to think freely while you discredit others because of their views, even if they follow the NAP. I am not racist or sexist, but if my neighbor is racist or sexist, I would not care, why would you?
I would say you miss the point since you try to add to the basic principle of NAP by adding in your "equality" points
You don't think it's immoral?
Of course I believe it is wrong to discriminate racially, but I am not going to dictate my views on to people, if they want to be racist, go right ahead. Morality is different to everyone, as long as they abide by the NAP, I do not care what type of morals people have. You are the one discriminating by saying those immoral people, even abiding immoral people, are lesser people because of their views.
@krazy kaju
Thank for those book reccomandations, I'm about to go buy them right now.
My question is, will these books explain why the collective ideal, where the workers "own" the factory doesn't work?
I imagine this is stupid, because no one will profit from this and it ruins the incentive to start a business when you know all your sacrifice has to be shared with the workers, the workers whom you pay for the service they offer you.
The reason for my irrational doubt, is because I've read and listened to so many advocating this practice of "anarcho-syndicalism" or "anarcho-communism", but they fail to explain logical reasons as in why and how will this work. They basically run around the argument, throwing morals, feelings etc. as in why this practice is "ok".
Free competition hurts people. It creates unemployment for those with outdated skills or for those working in inefficient and obsolete jobs. Regardless, it is what's good for society. Who could reasonably argue the contrary? It is altruistic equality under the law.
The whole point of economic theory is the study of what can be stated about social co-operation. It takes social co-operation as a given. One thing which can not be stated is to treat society as an organism, it isn't it is a theoretical taxonomical catagorization that can only be spoken of in very specific circumstances, What can be stated is that man is a social animal and finds society preferable, there is no real dispute in this.
3. Equality, they say, must exist economically.