When anarchists criticize inequality , others –especially non left libertarians- are quick to dismiss these concerns. We are told individuals are free to rise as far as they desire. We live in a meritocracy after all. This is an incredibly disheartening tactic to hear from a libertarian- an alleged champion of freedom and prosperity. It’s disturbing in at least two ways.
The first error in this meritocratic worldview results from vulgar libertarianism. This tendency to view the current statist quo as if it is a free market leads to the belief that there are no possible viable barriers in the way of individuals. In this view, if they have talent they should become wealthy and upper class .If not, then the reason is because they have an immoral lifestyle and parasitic habits. Without deeper thought, the poor are blamed for their condition. Is it any wonder why libertarianism is not appealing to the poor? This rhetoric results in the view that libertarianism (especially Anarcho-Capitalism), is ‘the rich man’s anarchism’. To the extent that this view is truly held and expressed by libertarians, the criticism is indeed valid. The reason meritocracy is vulgar, is almost never discussed by Anarcho-Capitalists. Barriers to entry such as licensing, all out monopoly and institution’s such as the welfare state propagate and maintain poverty. How disgusting it is to hear from statists that the state is the friend of the poor when it is their main barrier. The state breaks their legs, and then gives them crutches. How benevolent of the ruling class!
But wait. Let’s not fall into the second error of the defender of an existing meritocracy-‘Thin libertarianism’. Meritocracy is not only minimal to non-existent under statism but even were it not, there would be other factors at play. It’s not all about aggression as ‘the thin libertarians’ claim. There are deeply embedded cultural conditions which reduce or prevent social mobility. At this point, your average libertarian would tend to get uncomfortable. Admitting cultural forms of domination exist ,puts them in a panic- for what reason?, who knows !Maybe they conflate the raising of these issues with statism, so then when out comes one they think the other must inevitably follow. That is however a mistake.
The cultural conditions which hold people down are little discussed in libertarian circles. It’s almost never mentioned how a child growing up in a poor family has to struggle hard and be lucky (never mind dodge state barriers) to advance beyond the wealth and class they have inherited due to their upbringing. It’s never mentioned how society’s dehumanization of the non-white, immigrants, women and the disabled (among others )acts as a heavy weight on the shoulders of those seeking to improve their lot in life. It’s so easy and so safe to blame the victims for their status. It’s so self-protecting to say that the only possible reason they are poor or homeless or jobless is because of an inherent disposition to be that way – because a flaw on their part .It’s so generous to the cultural ,political and economic status quo for you to think and say so. For all the elites talk of democracy for the ordinary person, the classist attitude is one they revel in. Pervert perceptions and hide the problems.
The typical reaction of course will be the thin fall-back position. Those might be valid issues but what’s that got to do with libertarianism or anarchy. These are just aesthetic preferences. However this reply is based on a great misunderstanding of what freedom is and the values it relates to. Absence of aggression against innocents(which could be called freedom) is of course valuable. But within freedom is autonomy. This link is rarely made.
Freedom is but the specific application of autonomy to politics, to aggression and what to do about it. It is pretty meaningless to value freedom but when it is no longer an issue ignore the autonomy of the individual to put their desires, choices and preferences in action without unnecessary and immoral barriers. Social mobility requires autonomy. If this connection is not made, then libertarianism just functions as above- as a “rich man’s anarchism” with little concern for social issues. It just appears as a desire to abolish the state to be able to put in place restrictive social conditions. Anarchy is seen as the best way to do this and the state being viewed as little more than an impediment to it. What kind of fulfilling life can anyone have if instead of being met with institutional organized aggression they are met with a more loose but more pervasive more all embracing cultural domination ? It is in this same way that many social and political concerns intersect. That’s why won’t find within traditional anarchism a limiting just to opposition to statism. Anarchism is broader than that. It is radical social change on many fronts.
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.
"left Libertarians" remind me most of american politicians... American politicians say, "Yes, the constitution is great, but it isn't enough, we must add in more laws along with the constitution." Just like "Left Libertarians" say , " Yes, the NAP is great, but it isn't enough, we must add more principles along with the NAP." As we know, the constitiution has turned from an ''ok'' set of rules, to a complete mess because of the things added on to it, that is what I think "Left Libertarians" are going to do to the NAP, turn it into a crap principle because of all the things they want to add along with the NAP.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
"Meritocracy"?
Look, there is no such thing as meritocracy. Anybody who understands the relation between wages and marginal product understands that nobody in this world is paid according to how hard they work.
A sixty-year old CEO need not work hard, but his specific knowledge and contacts can make difference of billions of dollars to the company. For this reason, it makes sense to pay him in millions of dollars, even if he has a three day work week. The marginal cost of not having one person like him may exceed the otherwise fat paycheck given to him.
A young and physically healthy worker may be far more active and rigourous than his older and weaker colleagues. But the quality of what he produces is limited by what his fellow workers produce. He has a low marginal product, even though he works the hardest. So he will be paid little.
These are not good things or bad things. These are facts of reality. A classical liberal who defends natural society on grounds of "meritocracy" is as much a disservice to truth and honesty as a person who defends social engineering on grounds of "egalitarianism".
The truth is that nobody in this world is paid according to how hard he works, because of economic reality.
Thanks for starting this thread, Scott F!
Scott F:When anarchists criticize inequality , others –especially non left libertarians- are quick to dismiss these concerns. We are told individuals are free to rise as far as they desire. We live in a meritocracy after all. This is an incredibly disheartening tactic to hear from a libertarian- an alleged champion of freedom and prosperity. It’s disturbing in at least two ways.
I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy. Can you put forth any written examples where you see such a thing being argued?
Scott F:The first error in this meritocratic worldview results from vulgar libertarianism. This tendency to view the current statist quo as if it is a free market leads to the belief that there are no possible viable barriers in the way of individuals. In this view, if they have talent they should become wealthy and upper class .If not, then the reason is because they have an immoral lifestyle and parasitic habits. Without deeper thought, the poor are blamed for their condition. Is it any wonder why libertarianism is not appealing to the poor? This rhetoric results in the view that libertarianism (especially Anarcho-Capitalism), is ‘the rich man’s anarchism’. To the extent that this view is truly held and expressed by libertarians, the criticism is indeed valid. The reason meritocracy is vulgar, is almost never discussed by Anarcho-Capitalists. Barriers to entry such as licensing, all out monopoly and institution’s such as the welfare state propagate and maintain poverty. How disgusting it is to hear from statists that the state is the friend of the poor when it is their main barrier. The state breaks their legs, and then gives them crutches. How benevolent of the ruling class!
Again, I suspect you're misinterpreting the arguments of non-left-libertarians. The barriers to entry you talk about, for example, have been written about and discussed at length by countless libertarian thinkers.
Scott F:But wait. Let’s not fall into the second error of the defender of an existing meritocracy-‘Thin libertarianism’. Meritocracy is not only minimal to non-existent under statism but even were it not, there would be other factors at play. It’s not all about aggression as ‘the thin libertarians’ claim. There are deeply embedded cultural conditions which reduce or prevent social mobility. At this point, your average libertarian would tend to get uncomfortable. Admitting cultural forms of domination exist ,puts them in a panic- for what reason?, who knows !Maybe they conflate the raising of these issues with statism, so then when out comes one they think the other must inevitably follow. That is however a mistake.
Non-left-libertarians have addressed what you call "cultural forms of domination". One common assertion is that businessmen who are racist or sexist will likely see their market shares (and hence their revenues and profits) diminish vis-a-vis businessmen who don't discriminate in such ways. But not all forms of discrimination are created equal. What the market discriminates in is productivity. For example: if you show up at work late, leave early, and take long lunch breaks where frequently you come back intoxicated, can you really say that those things are due to you being black, female, homosexual, etc.?
Scott F:The cultural conditions which hold people down are little discussed in libertarian circles. It’s almost never mentioned how a child growing up in a poor family has to struggle hard and be lucky (never mind dodge state barriers) to advance beyond the wealth and class they have inherited due to their upbringing. It’s never mentioned how society’s dehumanization of the non-white, immigrants, women and the disabled (among others )acts as a heavy weight on the shoulders of those seeking to improve their lot in life. It’s so easy and so safe to blame the victims for their status. It’s so self-protecting to say that the only possible reason they are poor or homeless or jobless is because of an inherent disposition to be that way – because a flaw on their part .It’s so generous to the cultural ,political and economic status quo for you to think and say so. For all the elites talk of democracy for the ordinary person, the classist attitude is one they revel in. Pervert perceptions and hide the problems.
In this day in age, where do you see "society's dehumanization" of such people taking place? Is being called an offensive name on the street by someone you've never seen before really going to keep you from getting a job?
At the same time, however, I think it's very important to realize that life isn't fair. If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it? He should be free to do so, IMO -- after all, he's not hurting you by refusing to sell to you. But at the same time, you're also free to consider him an asshole and convince all of your acquaintances to blacklist him. My point here is that freedom of association goes both ways.
Finally, you seem to shift your opposition from non-left-libertarians to statist elites. Which group do you mean to directly oppose in this thread?
Scott F:The typical reaction of course will be the thin fall-back position. Those might be valid issues but what’s that got to do with libertarianism or anarchy. These are just aesthetic preferences. However this reply is based on a great misunderstanding of what freedom is and the values it relates to. Absence of aggression against innocents(which could be called freedom) is of course valuable. But within freedom is autonomy. This link is rarely made.
While you define freedom later, you don't define "autonomy" in your post. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "autonomy" and how it's different from "freedom" in your view. Can you please clarify?
Scott F:Freedom is but the specific application of autonomy to politics, to aggression and what to do about it. It is pretty meaningless to value freedom but when it is no longer an issue ignore the autonomy of the individual to put their desires, choices and preferences in action without unnecessary and immoral barriers. Social mobility requires autonomy. If this connection is not made, then libertarianism just functions as above- as a “rich man’s anarchism” with little concern for social issues. It just appears as a desire to abolish the state to be able to put in place restrictive social conditions. Anarchy is seen as the best way to do this and the state being viewed as little more than an impediment to it. What kind of fulfilling life can anyone have if instead of being met with institutional organized aggression they are met with a more loose but more pervasive more all embracing cultural domination ? It is in this same way that many social and political concerns intersect. That’s why won’t find within traditional anarchism a limiting just to opposition to statism. Anarchism is broader than that. It is radical social change on many fronts.
How do you define "social mobility"? Do you think it is, or can be, a two-way street?
I fail to see how, in the absence of the state, any social condition could be put into place (as it were) that is more restrictive than such could be put into place under the state. Can you please explain how I'm wrong?
How do you define "fulfilling life"? Do you consider people to be entitled to such? If so, why?
I look down on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. just like you do. But I also don't think people are prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: "left Libertarians" remind me most of american politicians... American politicians say, "Yes, the constitution is great, but it isn't enough, we must add in more laws along with the constitution." Just like "Left Libertarians" say , " Yes, the NAP is great, but it isn't enough, we must add more principles along with the NAP." As we know, the constitiution has turned from an ''ok'' set of rules, to a complete mess because of the things added on to it, that is what I think "Left Libertarians" are going to do to the NAP, turn it into a crap principle because of all the things they want to add along with the NAP.
1. this sounds a knee jerk reaction of "ahh don't attack thin libertarianism".
2. even if that turns out true ,these concerns are important for libertarianism and morality and someone must try to address them.
3. the US government's charter of legitimacy(aka constitution) was never perfect regardless of what was or wasn't added to it.
4. There's no evidence that's true.Anarchism never suffered that problem.
5. Insofar as An-cap refuses to deal with these issues is not in the spirit of true anarchism and is cut off from any kind of historical anarchism.
There can be no meritocracy without LTV. More over, on the merit of what? If you fell into leftist tropes you could rise up and down according to those merits, whatever they may be. It is an empty word.
Prateek Sanjay:"Meritocracy"? Look, there is no such thing as meritocracy. Anybody who understands the relation between wages and marginal product understands that nobody in this world is paid according to how hard they work.
William:There can be no meritocracy without LTV. More over, on the merit of what? If you fell into leftist tropes you could rise up and down according to those merits, whatever they may be. It is an empty word.
He's not suggesting objective value. He means that people get ahead in capitalism based on their merit, based on who they are. And that leads to inequality because we aren't all the same.
you are attacking libertarianism as a whole by suggesting this. Morality is different for everybody, why are you forcing your version of morality onto people? The NAP is not perfect either (as far as addressing a universal ethic code), but if you are suggesting that your principles along with the NAP is perfect, then i say that is abusrd.
Scott, can you please define equality?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Autolykos: "Thanks for starting this thread, Scott F!" No problems.This was an article I wrote for a site I write on now. "I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy" Not a pure meritocracy sure but I've seen some here argue as if some element of it exists ignoring the evidence otherwise on the cultural and statist levels. " The barriers to entry you talk about, for example, have been written about and discussed at length by countless libertarian thinkers." True however it's rarely applied to this issue by non left libertarians. "Non-left-libertarians have addressed what you call "cultural forms of domination". Where? "One common assertion is that businessmen who are racist or sexist will likely see their market shares (and hence their revenues and profits) diminish vis-a-vis businessmen who don't discriminate in such ways". That's only a minor economic treatment.That's barely touching on it at all. "For example: if you show up at work late, leave early, and take long lunch breaks where frequently you come back intoxicated, can you really say that those things are due to you being black, female, homosexual, etc.?" Those could involve other factors. "In this day in age, where do you see "society's dehumanization" of such people taking place?" all over the place.In relationships, in perceptions,in treatment of people.You've got to be kiddin. "Is being called an offensive name on the street by someone you've never seen before really going to keep you from getting a job?" This is a strawman of what I'm saying however it could do especially if it's systematic enough. " If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it?" True but noy exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones. " he's not hurting you by refusing to sell to you. " Well in the rights sense no but in the moral sense yes. "Finally, you seem to shift your opposition from non-left-libertarians to statist elites. Which group do you mean to directly oppose in this thread?" Both.However I'm critcizing An-caps for inconsistency and narrowness. "While you define freedom later, you don't define "autonomy" in your post. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "autonomy" and how it's different from "freedom" in your view. Can you please clarify?" I did roughly define autonomy.By autonomy I mean the ability to put your preferences and desires into action. Scott F:Freedom is but the specific application of autonomy to politics, to aggression and what to do about it. It is pretty meaningless to value freedom but when it is no longer an issue ignore the autonomy of the individual to put their desires, choices and preferences in action without unnecessary and immoral barriers. Social mobility requires autonomy. If this connection is not made, then libertarianism just functions as above- as a “rich man’s anarchism” with little concern for social issues. It just appears as a desire to abolish the state to be able to put in place restrictive social conditions. Anarchy is seen as the best way to do this and the state being viewed as little more than an impediment to it. What kind of fulfilling life can anyone have if instead of being met with institutional organized aggression they are met with a more loose but more pervasive more all embracing cultural domination ? It is in this same way that many social and political concerns intersect. That’s why won’t find within traditional anarchism a limiting just to opposition to statism. Anarchism is broader than that. It is radical social change on many fronts. "How do you define "social mobility"?" The ability to move up in terms of status.It's the heart of meritocracy. "Do you think it is, or can be, a two-way street?" As in you can move down? definately. "I fail to see how, in the absence of the state, any social condition could be put into place (as it were) that is more restrictive than such could be put into place under the state. Can you please explain how I'm wrong?" This seems to come from your position of 'thin libertarianism'. A social condition could be more restrictive than the state because it could cover anything and everything from how you act,what you eat,what you drink,how you dress etc from the minor to major details of life.Basically what I mean is culturally conservative authoritarian hierarchical cultures. "How do you define "fulfilling life"? " A life full of valuable things - the best life possible , would be a rough definition.It's a rather complex question -in my view it's a major question of ethics especially eudaimonism. "Do you consider people to be entitled to such?" No.But I believe it's desirable to aim for and that when it is prevented ,that is immoral. " But I also don't think people are prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense." I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled".
"Thanks for starting this thread, Scott F!"
No problems.This was an article I wrote for a site I write on now.
"I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy"
Not a pure meritocracy sure but I've seen some here argue as if some element of it exists ignoring the evidence otherwise on the cultural and statist levels.
" The barriers to entry you talk about, for example, have been written about and discussed at length by countless libertarian thinkers."
True however it's rarely applied to this issue by non left libertarians.
"Non-left-libertarians have addressed what you call "cultural forms of domination".
Where?
"One common assertion is that businessmen who are racist or sexist will likely see their market shares (and hence their revenues and profits) diminish vis-a-vis businessmen who don't discriminate in such ways".
That's only a minor economic treatment.That's barely touching on it at all.
"For example: if you show up at work late, leave early, and take long lunch breaks where frequently you come back intoxicated, can you really say that those things are due to you being black, female, homosexual, etc.?"
Those could involve other factors.
"In this day in age, where do you see "society's dehumanization" of such people taking place?"
all over the place.In relationships, in perceptions,in treatment of people.You've got to be kiddin.
"Is being called an offensive name on the street by someone you've never seen before really going to keep you from getting a job?"
This is a strawman of what I'm saying however it could do especially if it's systematic enough.
" If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it?"
True but noy exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones.
" he's not hurting you by refusing to sell to you. "
Well in the rights sense no but in the moral sense yes.
"Finally, you seem to shift your opposition from non-left-libertarians to statist elites. Which group do you mean to directly oppose in this thread?"
Both.However I'm critcizing An-caps for inconsistency and narrowness.
"While you define freedom later, you don't define "autonomy" in your post. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "autonomy" and how it's different from "freedom" in your view. Can you please clarify?"
I did roughly define autonomy.By autonomy I mean the ability to put your preferences and desires into action.
"How do you define "social mobility"?"
The ability to move up in terms of status.It's the heart of meritocracy.
"Do you think it is, or can be, a two-way street?"
As in you can move down? definately.
"I fail to see how, in the absence of the state, any social condition could be put into place (as it were) that is more restrictive than such could be put into place under the state. Can you please explain how I'm wrong?"
This seems to come from your position of 'thin libertarianism'. A social condition could be more restrictive than the state because it could cover anything and everything from how you act,what you eat,what you drink,how you dress etc from the minor to major details of life.Basically what I mean is culturally conservative authoritarian hierarchical cultures.
"How do you define "fulfilling life"? "
A life full of valuable things - the best life possible , would be a rough definition.It's a rather complex question -in my view it's a major question of ethics especially eudaimonism.
"Do you consider people to be entitled to such?" No.But I believe it's desirable to aim for and that when it is prevented ,that is immoral.
" But I also don't think people are prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense."
I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled".
Physiocrat: Scott, can you please define equality?
in basic terms ,an absence of lessers and betters(or treatment of people as such especially in light of the fact that in certain respects it is true ) in a certain respect (what is generally called dehumanization which is involved in hierarchies) as much as is possible.That's a rough definition.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: " you are attacking libertarianism as a whole by suggesting this." I'm not. An-cap is not the whole of libertarianism.What I'm really attacking is thin libertarianism which is what most non left libertarianism is- especially An-cap.I'm certainly not uncritical of libertarianism. "Morality is different for everybody," Debatable. "why are you forcing your version of morality onto people?" 1. How am I forcing anything? 2. I'm not saying how to reach that conclusion just that it's a valid conclusion. 3. I fail to see how anyone could morally disagree with this unless you'd like to come out with it? " but if you are suggesting that your principles along with the NAP is perfect, then i say that is abusrd." I haven't said that.I'm not sure what your getting at.I just see knee jerk reaction again.
" you are attacking libertarianism as a whole by suggesting this."
I'm not. An-cap is not the whole of libertarianism.What I'm really attacking is thin libertarianism which is what most non left libertarianism is- especially An-cap.I'm certainly not uncritical of libertarianism.
"Morality is different for everybody,"
Debatable.
"why are you forcing your version of morality onto people?"
1. How am I forcing anything?
2. I'm not saying how to reach that conclusion just that it's a valid conclusion.
3. I fail to see how anyone could morally disagree with this unless you'd like to come out with it?
" but if you are suggesting that your principles along with the NAP is perfect, then i say that is abusrd."
I haven't said that.I'm not sure what your getting at.I just see knee jerk reaction again.
William: "He's not suggesting objective value. He means that people get ahead in capitalism based on their merit, based on who they are. And that leads to inequality because we aren't all the same." Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much false.I'm not saying that it exists and I'm against it.No ,that's to misunderstand me.This is obvious.I've been very clear.I'm saying the idea of meritocracy is largely a myth.I'm unsure whether meritocracy is good itself though I have no immediate objections to it.I haven't made any comment in my piece whether it's good or bad- I certainly never said meritrocracy= inequality. "Likewise, he is going to have to understand that most of us are non cognitive to the word "equality". There is simply no way to make this word work in political or social science." Anyone who has not become indoctrinated by Rothbard's revolt against egalitarianism would tend to disagree. EDIT
"He's not suggesting objective value. He means that people get ahead in capitalism based on their merit, based on who they are. And that leads to inequality because we aren't all the same."
Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much false.I'm not saying that it exists and I'm against it.No ,that's to misunderstand me.This is obvious.I've been very clear.I'm saying the idea of meritocracy is largely a myth.I'm unsure whether meritocracy is good itself though I have no immediate objections to it.I haven't made any comment in my piece whether it's good or bad- I certainly never said meritrocracy= inequality.
William: "There can be no meritocracy without LTV. " That's a misunderstanding of the term. " More over, on the merit of what?" Your achievements,your efforts,your skills.This term is well understood -apparently except here
"There can be no meritocracy without LTV. "
That's a misunderstanding of the term.
" More over, on the merit of what?"
Your achievements,your efforts,your skills.This term is well understood -apparently except here
I do not see how different forms of morality can be debatable.... people aren't robots, we do not all think the same. you would force people into believing your version of morality by suggesting, for example, that discrimination in the workforce is bad and should not be in a society... that is forcing your morality onto people. you are the one discriminating all other forms of morality to favor your own. you somehow see as your version of morality to be dominate above every other school of thought... there is no knee jerking here. you believe that the NAP is a good policy but it isn't sufficient' enough for you, so you decide to add in useless principles along with the NAP. you do not need to say such things, it is implied...
First, let me clarify that the status quo is NOT a free market, which is something that all "centrist" and "right" libertarians (personally, I regard myself as a "center-right" libertarian, as my views tend to be somewhere between Rothbard and Hoppe) recognize. Yes, the State's interference in the economy is harmful and yes it does hold some people down, but I think left-"libertarians" greatly exaggerate the extent of this. The thing they need to accept is that, in any genuine free market, many of the same people who have relatively low incomes would still have relatively low incomes. In particular, those who enjoy living off of the taxpayers without ever having to work (surely, nobody realistically denies the existence of at least some people like this) would probably find themselves worse off in a libertarian society.
The allegations that our present society "dehumanizes" non-whites and women are absurd, although I will grant the point with regard to immigrants (especially immigrants that illegally enter the United States) and disabled people (although in the case of disabled people, people have good reason to fear them, due to the harm caused by Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits). The thing which far too many libertarians refuse to recognize is that non-whites and women are, at present, privileged groups (state-backed privileges for women are much more significant than the privileges for non-whites, so I'm not sure if I would count non-white men as privileged). There are endless laws on the books requiring employers to discriminate against white men (on behalf of women and minorities) and there are numerous laws that make it difficult to fire members of these privileged groups. There are also countless laws redistributing wealth to these groups. In fact, most of the welfare state can be proven to be a great transfer of wealth from men to women. Recently, the feminazis at NOW denounced spending cuts because the programs to be cut disproportionately benefit women, which is a major confession from those defenders of female privilege. The Obamacare law prohibits health insurance providers from charging women more than men (which means they now must, by law, charge women too little and men too much, as everybody knows that women use health care much more than men). The majority of money in Social Security and Medicare is paid in by men (I think everybody knows that to be true), but women get most of the benefits (due to having a longer life expectancy). Government employment in necessary services (yes, these things should be provided by the free market, but at present, as we all know, government monopolizes many useful products and services) tends to be disproportionately male, but women are disproportionately represented in the utterly wasteful bureaucracies. If the government were to cut waste, the result would be the firing of most female government employees, which is why that will never happen without a severe debt crisis.
Another example of female privilege in our society is the marriage and divorce industry. We all know which marital partner generally controls the finances in most marriages in our society (the one who is also more likely to spend money, in most cases). After years of leeching off of their husband, in our society, women generally get "bored" and decide to get a divorce. In divorce court, she knows she will find a sympathetic judge who will give her half of his property, "custody" of the kids (irrespective of their wishes), and force him to pay her an exorbitant welfare check (under the pretense of "supporting" the kids) until the kids turn 18.
In a libertarian society, not only would women lose all of these privileges (I don't see any man voluntarily agreeing to unfair divorce settlements if judges are no longer unilaterally allowed to determine the terms of a divorce), but they would also be without all of the "security" provided by government. Thus, it shouldn't surprise anybody that men are much more likely to be libertarian than women and that women are much more likely to be authoritarians and are usually the strongest supporters of the most authoritarian governments (the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions have been almost entirely revolutions of young men). Most women do not value being free, as they would rather be "secure" and "know" that the government will take care of them. Men are far more likely to desire to be free. Socialism appeals to women, because they like being confident that they will be taken care of. Liberty appeals to men, because men value independence more than women. It surely wasn't a coincidence that women's suffrage correlates strongly with expansion of government (prior to the 19th Amendment, in states that adopted female suffrage first, government grew more than in states where only men could vote; I think this was pointed out by John Lott).
If most women should be written off as potential libertarians, does that mean that libertarian victory is hopeless? No, it doesn't. Fortunately, women tend to be politically apathetic, so they can be influenced to vote for a particular candidate or to not vote at all by their partner. However, increasingly, I am convinced that a libertarian society will result out of an Egyptian or Tunisian style revolution. For that to happen, we merely need to convert a significant portion of the younger men to libertarianism and wait for the revolution to break out (it will probably happen in the near future if things don't improve much, as the younger men are increasingly alienated from the status quo). When it does, we need to be there on the ground influencing the revolutionaries (similar to the role that the Muslim Brotherhood has played in the Egyptian revolution). Due to the risks inherent in a revolution, I prefer the democratic route, but if change doesn't come from the ballot box, then it will have to come through other means. However, I think the current events in the Middle East vindicate Rothbard's "Leninist" strategy.
I guess my libertarianism isn't exactly "thin," but if it is "thick," it is a "thick" libertarianism of the right.
Thanks for replying, Scott.
Scott F:"I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy" Not a pure meritocracy sure but I've seen some here argue as if some element of it exists ignoring the evidence otherwise on the cultural and statist levels.
In the absence of interference, greater productivity (real or at least perceived) is rewarded, right? Or is that not what you mean by "meritocracy"?
Scott F:" The barriers to entry you talk about, for example, have been written about and discussed at length by countless libertarian thinkers." True however it's rarely applied to this issue by non left libertarians.
It is? I'd say it's applied frequently to this issue, at the very least. What makes you think it's applied rarely here?
Scott F:"Non-left-libertarians have addressed what you call "cultural forms of domination". Where?
I don't have any references offhand, but I could find some if you'd like.
Scott F:"One common assertion is that businessmen who are racist or sexist will likely see their market shares (and hence their revenues and profits) diminish vis-a-vis businessmen who don't discriminate in such ways". That's only a minor economic treatment.That's barely touching on it at all.
How is it minor? Isn't economics at the very heart and center of human life? I mean, you don't see how such discrimination will yield lower wages for such people, which will then (ceteris paribus) entice others to hire them preferentially? How does that not directly address what you're talking about? Or are you concerned about changing people's minds?
Scott F:"For example: if you show up at work late, leave early, and take long lunch breaks where frequently you come back intoxicated, can you really say that those things are due to you being black, female, homosexual, etc.?" Those could involve other factors.
Really? Like what? But regardless, are you saying here that slacking off on the job is justified? That one shouldn't be fired for slacking off (and thus not upholding his end of the deal)?
Scott F:"In this day in age, where do you see "society's dehumanization" of such people taking place?" all over the place.In relationships, in perceptions,in treatment of people.You've got to be kiddin.
Sorry, I'm really not. Can you please elaborate on this? Because I have next to no idea what you mean.
Scott F:"Is being called an offensive name on the street by someone you've never seen before really going to keep you from getting a job?" This is a strawman of what I'm saying however it could do especially if it's systematic enough.
How is it a strawman? That is, how does it misrepresent your position?
I think an important issue in this discussion is causality. I suspect our treatments of it are different from one another. But let me ask you, what is your treatment of causality? Under what conditions do you think one can be considered to cause something against another, or cause another to do something?
Scott F:" If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it?" True but noy exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones.
Interesting. I consider "moral arguments" and "rights arguments" to be one and the same. So it seems our definitions of "moral" are different. How do you define "moral"?
Scott F:" he's not hurting you by refusing to sell to you. " Well in the rights sense no but in the moral sense yes.
How can there be harm without rights, in your opinion?
I think this strikes at the heart of your philosophy and is the fundamental difference between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians.
Scott F:"Finally, you seem to shift your opposition from non-left-libertarians to statist elites. Which group do you mean to directly oppose in this thread?" Both.However I'm critcizing An-caps for inconsistency and narrowness.
Fair enough. But if you're criticizing anarcho-capitalists/non-left-libertarians directly, then please do not switch the focus from them to statist elites.
Scott F:"While you define freedom later, you don't define "autonomy" in your post. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "autonomy" and how it's different from "freedom" in your view. Can you please clarify?" I did roughly define autonomy.By autonomy I mean the ability to put your preferences and desires into action.
Sorry, I didn't see any precise definition given. That's not an attack, just the way I see it.
But thanks for defining "autonomy" for me above. Given that definition, I think it's important to recognize a difference between positive ability (i.e. possessing the means to do something) and negative ability (i.e. the absence of barriers from doing it). If you don't distinguish between these two things, or you include the former in your definition of "autonomy", then you must logically conclude that none of us ever has complete autonomy. For example, no one is preventing me from jumping all the way from the Earth to the Moon, but I don't possess the means to do it.
Scott F:"How do you define "social mobility"?" The ability to move up in terms of status.It's the heart of meritocracy.
Okay, how do you define "status"?
Scott F:"Do you think it is, or can be, a two-way street?" As in you can move down? definately.
Okay, then why do you define "social mobility" above only in terms of one direction? :P
Scott F:"I fail to see how, in the absence of the state, any social condition could be put into place (as it were) that is more restrictive than such could be put into place under the state. Can you please explain how I'm wrong?" This seems to come from your position of 'thin libertarianism'. A social condition could be more restrictive than the state because it could cover anything and everything from how you act,what you eat,what you drink,how you dress etc from the minor to major details of life.Basically what I mean is culturally conservative authoritarian hierarchical cultures.
How can the absence of the state be more authoritarian than the presence of the state? Maybe I need to ask you how you're defining "authoritarian"?
Scott F:"How do you define "fulfilling life"? " A life full of valuable things - the best life possible , would be a rough definition.It's a rather complex question -in my view it's a major question of ethics especially eudaimonism.
Doesn't "the best life possible" imply some sort of objective value theory? Otherwise, I could say I have the best life possible without anyone else ever agreeing with me.
Scott F:"Do you consider people to be entitled to such?" No.But I believe it's desirable to aim for and that when it is prevented ,that is immoral. " But I also don't think people are prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense." I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled".
I treat "entitled" as a rights term, as you put it above. In other words, by "entitled" I mean "have a right to". This means that, if one is entitled to something and is somehow denied it, he's justified in using or employing coercion (read: threat or use of violence) to obtain it.
Finally, I'd like to add this: please don't feel like I'm attacking you in any of the above. My intention is to (help) create a better mutual understanding between the two of us.
Scott F:Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much false.I'm not saying that it exists and I'm against it.No ,that's to misunderstand me.This is obvious.I've been very clear.I'm saying the idea of meritocracy is largely a myth.
Ok, it's a distinction in terminology, but we are saying the same thing. You are suggesting that talent or effort or choices doesn't determine success as much as the material conditions of our upbringing. Therefore free markets can never lead to sameness of outcome. I would ask what you want to do about it? As long as we are biological beings it is simply impossible for all of us to have the same parents. You expect the universe to conform to some platonic ideal, but there is no way to implement that. Statist-leftists suggest that systematic 'corrections' at the hand of the state should make society equal. But you propose no such solution.
Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much
Scott, that is what we are saying. It is a bogus concept for any form of scientific coherent social conception.
Thank you EmperorNero for finally pointing out Scott has not proposed a solution to the "problem." This thread has been a real hard read. I'm afraid I still have no idea what the OP is really about.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: "I do not see how different forms of morality can be debatable.... people aren't robots, we do not all think the same. " I agree. We do not. "you would force people into believing your version of morality by suggesting, for example, that discrimination in the workforce is bad and should not be in a society.." Force? meaning what? I'm not forcing I'm arguing which is what goes on here all the time unless this isn't a forum. ". that is forcing your morality onto people. " I'm not forcing anything.I'm arguing for it.And I fail to see what's to disagree with.Maybe that's the problem here. "you are the one discriminating all other forms of morality to favor your own." Scaryy. " you believe that the NAP is a good policy but it isn't sufficient' enough for you," Correct.Just believing in the NAP is not enough.Things are more complex than that.Anarchism has always recognised this and to the extent An-cap does not it (1) cuts itself off from anarchist history/tradition (2) is doubtful whether it is Anarchism. "so you decide to add in useless principles along with the NAP. " I've argued they are not useful.Again,I just hear cultural conservatism.
"I do not see how different forms of morality can be debatable.... people aren't robots, we do not all think the same. "
I agree. We do not.
"you would force people into believing your version of morality by suggesting, for example, that discrimination in the workforce is bad and should not be in a society.."
Force? meaning what? I'm not forcing I'm arguing which is what goes on here all the time unless this isn't a forum.
". that is forcing your morality onto people. "
I'm not forcing anything.I'm arguing for it.And I fail to see what's to disagree with.Maybe that's the problem here.
"you are the one discriminating all other forms of morality to favor your own."
Scaryy.
" you believe that the NAP is a good policy but it isn't sufficient' enough for you,"
Correct.Just believing in the NAP is not enough.Things are more complex than that.Anarchism has always recognised this and to the extent An-cap does not it (1) cuts itself off from anarchist history/tradition (2) is doubtful whether it is Anarchism.
"so you decide to add in useless principles along with the NAP. "
I've argued they are not useful.Again,I just hear cultural conservatism.
Statism is Crime: "First, let me clarify that the status quo is NOT a free market," Thank you. "which is something that all "centrist" and "right" libertarians (personally, I regard myself as a "center-right" libertarian, as my views tend to be somewhere between Rothbard and Hoppe) recognize. " They claim to but when it comes to poverty or sexism or wage labour or something like that they forget it. "The thing they need to accept is that, in any genuine free market, many of the same people who have relatively low incomes would still have relatively low incomes." How so? proof? " In particular, those who enjoy living off of the taxpayers without ever having to work (surely, nobody realistically denies the existence of at least some people like this) would probably find themselves worse off in a libertarian society." Possibly but without the welfare state incentivising this sorts of better it's unlikely to happen. "The allegations that our present society "dehumanizes" non-whites and women are absurd," You've got to be kiddin. " The thing which far too many libertarians refuse to recognize is that non-whites and women are, at present, privileged groups (state-backed privileges for women are much more significant than the privileges for non-whites, so I'm not sure if I would count non-white men as privileged). There are endless laws on the books requiring employers to discriminate against white men (on behalf of women and minorities) and there are numerous laws that make it difficult to fire members of these privileged groups. There are also countless laws redistributing wealth to these groups. In fact, most of the welfare state can be proven to be a great transfer of wealth from men to women. " I don't see that at all. "Recently, the feminazis" Ok ,you just killed the debate by displaying your true colours. " as everybody knows that women use health care much more than men)." Do they? " as we all know, government monopolizes many useful products and services)" I don't 'know' that at all. . "Another example of female privilege in our society is the marriage and divorce industry. We all know which marital partner generally controls the finances in most marriages in our society (the one who is also more likely to spend money, in most cases). " Yes,the male. "shouldn't surprise anybody that men are much more likely to be libertarian than women and that women are much more likely to be authoritarians and are usually the strongest supporters of the most authoritarian governments " Non sequitur and generalization. " Most women do not value being free," what are you on about? how can you possibly know this.I fear I know your leanings here already. " Socialism appeals to women, because they like being confident that they will be taken care of. Liberty appeals to men, because men value independence more than women." I smell sexism. " but if it is "thick," it is a "thick" libertarianism of the right." Yes.It appears your at most paleo 'libertarian' but probably more Paleo-conservative.
"First, let me clarify that the status quo is NOT a free market,"
Thank you.
"which is something that all "centrist" and "right" libertarians (personally, I regard myself as a "center-right" libertarian, as my views tend to be somewhere between Rothbard and Hoppe) recognize. "
They claim to but when it comes to poverty or sexism or wage labour or something like that they forget it.
"The thing they need to accept is that, in any genuine free market, many of the same people who have relatively low incomes would still have relatively low incomes."
How so? proof?
" In particular, those who enjoy living off of the taxpayers without ever having to work (surely, nobody realistically denies the existence of at least some people like this) would probably find themselves worse off in a libertarian society."
Possibly but without the welfare state incentivising this sorts of better it's unlikely to happen.
"The allegations that our present society "dehumanizes" non-whites and women are absurd,"
You've got to be kiddin.
" The thing which far too many libertarians refuse to recognize is that non-whites and women are, at present, privileged groups (state-backed privileges for women are much more significant than the privileges for non-whites, so I'm not sure if I would count non-white men as privileged). There are endless laws on the books requiring employers to discriminate against white men (on behalf of women and minorities) and there are numerous laws that make it difficult to fire members of these privileged groups. There are also countless laws redistributing wealth to these groups. In fact, most of the welfare state can be proven to be a great transfer of wealth from men to women. "
I don't see that at all.
"Recently, the feminazis"
Ok ,you just killed the debate by displaying your true colours.
" as everybody knows that women use health care much more than men)."
Do they?
" as we all know, government monopolizes many useful products and services)"
I don't 'know' that at all.
.
"Another example of female privilege in our society is the marriage and divorce industry. We all know which marital partner generally controls the finances in most marriages in our society (the one who is also more likely to spend money, in most cases). "
Yes,the male.
"shouldn't surprise anybody that men are much more likely to be libertarian than women and that women are much more likely to be authoritarians and are usually the strongest supporters of the most authoritarian governments "
Non sequitur and generalization.
" Most women do not value being free,"
what are you on about? how can you possibly know this.I fear I know your leanings here already.
" Socialism appeals to women, because they like being confident that they will be taken care of. Liberty appeals to men, because men value independence more than women."
I smell sexism.
" but if it is "thick," it is a "thick" libertarianism of the right."
Yes.It appears your at most paleo 'libertarian' but probably more Paleo-conservative.
Very good post, Scott. I agree almost entirely. So in that sense, I am sympathetic to thick libertarianism. It's really sad, that people try to avoid such topics and attack strawman instead of a real issues being told in OP.
To compare NAP to US Constitution is ludicrous. Constitution was flawed from the beginning, because it was inconsistent piece of trash with magical words, rules and meanings, without any sense of principality and justice. NAP is however just a principle, that majority of people agree with, even if some hold contradicting ideas at the same time and try to deny that.
Anyway, interesting topic.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
In anarchy, the mores of society themselves would be defined in a 'meritocratic' way (via group selection i.e. social coercion).
The OP makes the mistake of thinking ancaps want 100% economic liberty and 0% equality and brotherhood.
Ancap is logically compatible with any preference regarding "égalité, fraternité, solidarité".
Autolykos: Thanks for replying, Scott. Scott F:"I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy" Not a pure meritocracy sure but I've seen some here argue as if some element of it exists ignoring the evidence otherwise on the cultural and statist levels. "In the absence of interference, greater productivity (real or at least perceived) is rewarded, right? Or is that not what you mean by "meritocracy"?" Yes. Scott F:" The barriers to entry you talk about, for example, have been written about and discussed at length by countless libertarian thinkers." True however it's rarely applied to this issue by non left libertarians. "It is? I'd say it's applied frequently to this issue, at the very least. What makes you think it's applied rarely here?" I've never read anything by non left libertarians linking barriers to entry and criticizing meritocracy before.Or the other subjects in my manifesto. Scott F:"Non-left-libertarians have addressed what you call "cultural forms of domination". Where? "I don't have any references offhand, but I could find some if you'd like." Thank you. Scott F:"One common assertion is that businessmen who are racist or sexist will likely see their market shares (and hence their revenues and profits) diminish vis-a-vis businessmen who don't discriminate in such ways". That's only a minor economic treatment.That's barely touching on it at all. "How is it minor? Isn't economics at the very heart and center of human life?" True but he's only talking about the freed market ,it's only a tendency not a guarantee and he's not discussing the causes/effects of racism and the like. "I mean, you don't see how such discrimination will yield lower wages for such people, which will then (ceteris paribus) entice others to hire them preferentially?" I do however I agree with Roderick Long that cultural factors can get in the way of this. "How does that not directly address what you're talking about? " That doesn't touch on the causes of these problems,their effects and how it relates to anarchism. Scott F:"For example: if you show up at work late, leave early, and take long lunch breaks where frequently you come back intoxicated, can you really say that those things are due to you being black, female, homosexual, etc.?" Those could involve other factors. " But regardless, are you saying here that slacking off on the job is justified?" Debatable.Depends what you mean by slacking. Scott F:"In this day in age, where do you see "society's dehumanization" of such people taking place?" all over the place.In relationships, in perceptions,in treatment of people.You've got to be kiddin. "Sorry, I'm really not. Can you please elaborate on this? Because I have next to no idea what you mean." Women treating as lessers,immigrants, non white people.You can't be saying racism,sexism and the like don't exist. Scott F:"Is being called an offensive name on the street by someone you've never seen before really going to keep you from getting a job?" This is a strawman of what I'm saying however it could do especially if it's systematic enough. "How is it a strawman? That is, how does it misrepresent your position?" I didn't say being called an offensive name would stop you getting a job ,I said racism in general keeps people down and that when it's systematic is when it's worse. "I think an important issue in this discussion is causality. I suspect our treatments of it are different from one another. But let me ask you, what is your treatment of causality? " While we clearly disagree on things,I'm not sure why you think we differ on this. Scott F:" If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it?" True but not exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones. "Interesting. I consider "moral arguments" and "rights arguments" to be one and the same. So it seems our definitions of "moral" are different. How do you define "moral"?" Well let me clarify.Of course I consider rights arguments to be backed by moral arguments i.e. to violate a right is immoral BUT I do not think if you have a right to do X it's moral to do X. Moral in the typical sense of (roughly) proper relations between humans. Scott F:" he's not hurting you by refusing to sell to you. " Well in the rights sense no but in the moral sense yes. "How can there be harm without rights, in your opinion?" Harm is broader than physical harm.You harm a person by treating them badly. "I think this strikes at the heart of your philosophy and is the fundamental difference between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians." I disagree.Most people believe harm is broader than harm from violating rights.Now to be clear I'm NOT saying that morality negates rights- that's a general statist argument. What I'm rejecting is libertarians who forget that a right to do X does not mean it's moral to do X. My position is that of course it's immoral to violate rights and that it should never be forgot that there might be a right to do X(e.g. free speech) but certain uses of that right might be immoral.That's a very clear distinction I think. Scott F:"Finally, you seem to shift your opposition from non-left-libertarians to statist elites. Which group do you mean to directly oppose in this thread?" Both.However I'm critcizing An-caps for inconsistency and narrowness. " But if you're criticizing anarcho-capitalists/non-left-libertarians directly, then please do not switch the focus from them to statist elites." I'm criticizing both on the point that both tend to blame the victims. Scott F:"While you define freedom later, you don't define "autonomy" in your post. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "autonomy" and how it's different from "freedom" in your view. Can you please clarify?" I did roughly define autonomy.By autonomy I mean the ability to put your preferences and desires into action. "Sorry, I didn't see any precise definition given. That's not an attack, just the way I see it." no worries. "Given that definition, I think it's important to recognize a difference between positive ability (i.e. possessing the means to do something) and negative ability (i.e. the absence of barriers from doing it). If you don't distinguish between these two things, or you include the former in your definition of "autonomy", then you must logically conclude that none of us ever has complete autonomy. For example, no one is preventing me from jumping all the way from the Earth to the Moon, but I don't possess the means to do it." I see what your saying and that has weighed on my mind when I have been defining/refining my thoughts on autonomy.Of course I'm not saying autonomy is the ability to do anything.I include in the definition that which is logically possible i.e. excepting natural restraints which are unavoidable. Scott F:"How do you define "social mobility"?" The ability to move up in terms of status.It's the heart of meritocracy. Okay, how do you define "status"? How you feel/are viewed within society. Scott F:"Do you think it is, or can be, a two-way street?" As in you can move down? definately. "Okay, then why do you define "social mobility" above only in terms of one direction? :P" Fair point.However that's not central to my argument. Scott F:"I fail to see how, in the absence of the state, any social condition could be put into place (as it were) that is more restrictive than such could be put into place under the state. Can you please explain how I'm wrong?" This seems to come from your position of 'thin libertarianism'. A social condition could be more restrictive than the state because it could cover anything and everything from how you act,what you eat,what you drink,how you dress etc from the minor to major details of life.Basically what I mean is culturally conservative authoritarian hierarchical cultures. "How can the absence of the state be more authoritarian than the presence of the state?" It could dictate your life down to the smallest details now granted the state does this massively already.But this would be a voluntary system and one you'd be caught up in.It would BE society itself. "Maybe I need to ask you how you're defining "authoritarian"?" I admit this is still a concept I'm fully sketching out.These sorts of things are still concepts I'm clarifying in my mind and have done less thinking on than BrainPolice say. I'd say an authoritarian relationship is one which involves a hierarchy whereby some are treated as lessers and some are treated as superiors and there is an attempt to limit or even abolish the autonomy of the lessers. Scott F:"How do you define "fulfilling life"? " A life full of valuable things - the best life possible , would be a rough definition.It's a rather complex question -in my view it's a major question of ethics especially eudaimonism. "Doesn't "the best life possible" imply some sort of objective value theory?" In ethics yes.However fulfilling life could be used in a minimal sense to mean the best kind of life you possibly have minus artificial restraints. Scott F:"Do you consider people to be entitled to such?" No.But I believe it's desirable to aim for and that when it is prevented ,that is immoral. " But I also don't think people are prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense." I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled". "I treat "entitled" as a rights term, as you put it above. In other words, by "entitled" I mean "have a right to". This means that, if one is entitled to something and is somehow denied it, he's justified in using or employing coercion (read: threat or use of violence) to obtain it." so basically, you mean (1)do I think individuals have positive rights or in another way(2) do they have a right to autonomy? (1) no however I've come to see that even if they did it doesn't follow the state must fulfill them but it would be aggression and they contradict other rights so no they don't exist. (2) no. Freedom is the only kind of autonomy that can be protected by forced. Broader autonomy is a moral goal to aim for, a requirement for a self actualized or fulfilling life. "Finally, I'd like to add this: please don't feel like I'm attacking you in any of the above. My intention is to (help) create a better mutual understanding between the two of us." Thank you.I do want to make myself understood.I don't think what I'm saying needs to be seen as so scary as what people here seem to think it is.
"In the absence of interference, greater productivity (real or at least perceived) is rewarded, right? Or is that not what you mean by "meritocracy"?"
Yes.
"It is? I'd say it's applied frequently to this issue, at the very least. What makes you think it's applied rarely here?"
I've never read anything by non left libertarians linking barriers to entry and criticizing meritocracy before.Or the other subjects in my manifesto.
"I don't have any references offhand, but I could find some if you'd like."
"How is it minor? Isn't economics at the very heart and center of human life?"
True but he's only talking about the freed market ,it's only a tendency not a guarantee and he's not discussing the causes/effects of racism and the like.
"I mean, you don't see how such discrimination will yield lower wages for such people, which will then (ceteris paribus) entice others to hire them preferentially?"
I do however I agree with Roderick Long that cultural factors can get in the way of this.
"How does that not directly address what you're talking about? "
That doesn't touch on the causes of these problems,their effects and how it relates to anarchism.
" But regardless, are you saying here that slacking off on the job is justified?"
Debatable.Depends what you mean by slacking.
"Sorry, I'm really not. Can you please elaborate on this? Because I have next to no idea what you mean."
Women treating as lessers,immigrants, non white people.You can't be saying racism,sexism and the like don't exist.
"How is it a strawman? That is, how does it misrepresent your position?"
I didn't say being called an offensive name would stop you getting a job ,I said racism in general keeps people down and that when it's systematic is when it's worse.
"I think an important issue in this discussion is causality. I suspect our treatments of it are different from one another. But let me ask you, what is your treatment of causality? "
While we clearly disagree on things,I'm not sure why you think we differ on this.
Scott F:" If a person decides not to sell you his house because you're black, female, homosexual, Muslim, etc., that's his right, isn't it?" True but not exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones.
True but not exactly what I'm arguing.Your conflating moral arguments and rights ones.
"Interesting. I consider "moral arguments" and "rights arguments" to be one and the same. So it seems our definitions of "moral" are different. How do you define "moral"?"
Well let me clarify.Of course I consider rights arguments to be backed by moral arguments i.e. to violate a right is immoral BUT I do not think if you have a right to do X it's moral to do X.
Moral in the typical sense of (roughly) proper relations between humans.
"How can there be harm without rights, in your opinion?"
Harm is broader than physical harm.You harm a person by treating them badly.
"I think this strikes at the heart of your philosophy and is the fundamental difference between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians."
I disagree.Most people believe harm is broader than harm from violating rights.Now to be clear I'm NOT saying that morality negates rights- that's a general statist argument. What I'm rejecting is libertarians who forget that a right to do X does not mean it's moral to do X. My position is that of course it's immoral to violate rights and that it should never be forgot that there might be a right to do X(e.g. free speech) but certain uses of that right might be immoral.That's a very clear distinction I think.
" But if you're criticizing anarcho-capitalists/non-left-libertarians directly, then please do not switch the focus from them to statist elites."
I'm criticizing both on the point that both tend to blame the victims.
"Sorry, I didn't see any precise definition given. That's not an attack, just the way I see it."
no worries.
"Given that definition, I think it's important to recognize a difference between positive ability (i.e. possessing the means to do something) and negative ability (i.e. the absence of barriers from doing it). If you don't distinguish between these two things, or you include the former in your definition of "autonomy", then you must logically conclude that none of us ever has complete autonomy. For example, no one is preventing me from jumping all the way from the Earth to the Moon, but I don't possess the means to do it."
I see what your saying and that has weighed on my mind when I have been defining/refining my thoughts on autonomy.Of course I'm not saying autonomy is the ability to do anything.I include in the definition that which is logically possible i.e. excepting natural restraints which are unavoidable.
How you feel/are viewed within society.
"Okay, then why do you define "social mobility" above only in terms of one direction? :P"
Fair point.However that's not central to my argument.
"How can the absence of the state be more authoritarian than the presence of the state?"
It could dictate your life down to the smallest details now granted the state does this massively already.But this would be a voluntary system and one you'd be caught up in.It would BE society itself.
"Maybe I need to ask you how you're defining "authoritarian"?"
I admit this is still a concept I'm fully sketching out.These sorts of things are still concepts I'm clarifying in my mind and have done less thinking on than BrainPolice say.
I'd say an authoritarian relationship is one which involves a hierarchy whereby some are treated as lessers and some are treated as superiors and there is an attempt to limit or even abolish the autonomy of the lessers.
"Doesn't "the best life possible" imply some sort of objective value theory?"
In ethics yes.However fulfilling life could be used in a minimal sense to mean the best kind of life you possibly have minus artificial restraints.
"I treat "entitled" as a rights term, as you put it above. In other words, by "entitled" I mean "have a right to". This means that, if one is entitled to something and is somehow denied it, he's justified in using or employing coercion (read: threat or use of violence) to obtain it."
so basically, you mean (1)do I think individuals have positive rights or in another way(2) do they have a right to autonomy?
(1) no however I've come to see that even if they did it doesn't follow the state must fulfill them but it would be aggression and they contradict other rights so no they don't exist.
(2) no. Freedom is the only kind of autonomy that can be protected by forced. Broader autonomy is a moral goal to aim for, a requirement for a self actualized or fulfilling life.
"Finally, I'd like to add this: please don't feel like I'm attacking you in any of the above. My intention is to (help) create a better mutual understanding between the two of us."
Thank you.I do want to make myself understood.I don't think what I'm saying needs to be seen as so scary as what people here seem to think it is.
I think people misunderstood my constitution analogy... i am not comparing the constitiution to NAP
Greg:Thank you EmperorNero for finally pointing out Scott has not proposed a solution to the "problem." This thread has been a real hard read. I'm afraid I still have no idea what the OP is really about.
It is about the old question whether equality should be measured in terms of opportunity or results. If you believe in equality of opportunity, then cultural conditions do not reduce equality, because they do not reduce your opportunity. Those that believe in equality of results (although they don't call it that) believe that nature is inherently unfair because we are not all offered the same opportunities in life. Society is not truly equal until people have equalized chances to achieve results. The latter has generally led to the desire for a totalitarian state that 'corrects imbalances', i.e. discriminates in order to equalize results. But Scott is a free market leftist, as such he appears to simply expound the problem without proposing a solution.
EmperorNero: Scott F:Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much false.I'm not saying that it exists and I'm against it.No ,that's to misunderstand me.This is obvious.I've been very clear.I'm saying the idea of meritocracy is largely a myth. " You are suggesting that talent or effort or choices doesn't determine success as much as the material conditions of our upbringing." Yes - material conditions, cultural treatment e.g. racism etc and statist barriers to entry. "Therefore free markets can never lead to sameness of outcome." does not follow. "I would ask what you want to do about it? As long as we are biological beings it is simply impossible for all of us to have the same parents." What does that have to do with what I've said?
" You are suggesting that talent or effort or choices doesn't determine success as much as the material conditions of our upbringing."
Yes - material conditions, cultural treatment e.g. racism etc and statist barriers to entry.
"Therefore free markets can never lead to sameness of outcome."
does not follow.
"I would ask what you want to do about it? As long as we are biological beings it is simply impossible for all of us to have the same parents."
What does that have to do with what I've said?
MaikU: "Very good post, Scott. I agree almost entirely." Thank you.I try my best.I was nervous about this given the last reaction and how tiring it was to repeat my points etc but I felt it was worth it.How can libertarianism ever improve if there isn't internal critique? "So in that sense, I am sympathetic to thick libertarianism. It's really sad, that people try to avoid such topics and attack strawman instead of a real issues being told in OP." Thank you.well that's exactly my point and a huge problem I find in libertarianism.It addresses statism which is a real enough issue but stops there.There's more to politics than statism and not everything is reducible to aggression/statism.That's the 'thin libertarian' error.
"Very good post, Scott. I agree almost entirely."
Thank you.I try my best.I was nervous about this given the last reaction and how tiring it was to repeat my points etc but I felt it was worth it.How can libertarianism ever improve if there isn't internal critique?
"So in that sense, I am sympathetic to thick libertarianism. It's really sad, that people try to avoid such topics and attack strawman instead of a real issues being told in OP."
Thank you.well that's exactly my point and a huge problem I find in libertarianism.It addresses statism which is a real enough issue but stops there.There's more to politics than statism and not everything is reducible to aggression/statism.That's the 'thin libertarian' error.
William: Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based on their talents and efforts is in two ways pretty much "Scott, that is what we are saying. It is a bogus concept for any form of scientific coherent social conception." That's funny because individuals here have argued for it and it's generally tied to the idea of 'Capitalism' even among libertarians.
"Scott, that is what we are saying. It is a bogus concept for any form of scientific coherent social conception."
That's funny because individuals here have argued for it and it's generally tied to the idea of 'Capitalism' even among libertarians.
Consultant: "The OP makes the mistake of thinking ancaps want 100% economic liberty and 0% equality and brotherhood." If you can point to an example where I'm wrong,I'd be grateful. "Ancap is logically compatible with any preference regarding "égalité, fraternité, solidarité" I'm not so sure.I think it would cease to be An-cap once it embraced that.
"The OP makes the mistake of thinking ancaps want 100% economic liberty and 0% equality and brotherhood."
If you can point to an example where I'm wrong,I'd be grateful.
"Ancap is logically compatible with any preference regarding "égalité, fraternité, solidarité"
I'm not so sure.I think it would cease to be An-cap once it embraced that.
" You are suggesting that talent or effort or choices doesn't determine success as much as the material conditions of our upbringing." Yes - material conditions, cultural treatment e.g. racism etc and statist barriers to entry. "Therefore free markets can never lead to sameness of outcome." does not follow. "I would ask what you want to do about it? As long as we are biological beings it is simply impossible for all of us to have the same parents." What does that have to do with what I've said?
Let's forget about the statist barriers to entry, since we are talking about anarchism. (Unless you are suggesting that they can never be abolished.) It's about material conditions; cultural treatment, wealth, looks, height, etc. They lead to inequality. Is that not your argument?
EmperorNero: Greg:Thank you EmperorNero for finally pointing out Scott has not proposed a solution to the "problem." This thread has been a real hard read. I'm afraid I still have no idea what the OP is really about. "It is about the old question whether equality should be measured in terms of opportunity or results." That's pretty much a false dichotomy. "If you believe in equality of opportunity, then cultural conditions do not reduce equality, because they do not reduce your opportunity. " I disagree. "Those that believe in equality of results (although they don't call it that) believe that nature is inherently unfair because we are not all offered the same opportunities in life. Society is not truly equal until people have equalized chances to achieve results." I think you've confused equal opportunities and equal results. " But Scott is a free market leftist, as such he appears to simply expound the problem without proposing a solution." Who says I haven't offered a solution? isn't anarchy itself PART of a solution?
"It is about the old question whether equality should be measured in terms of opportunity or results."
That's pretty much a false dichotomy.
"If you believe in equality of opportunity, then cultural conditions do not reduce equality, because they do not reduce your opportunity. "
I disagree.
"Those that believe in equality of results (although they don't call it that) believe that nature is inherently unfair because we are not all offered the same opportunities in life. Society is not truly equal until people have equalized chances to achieve results."
I think you've confused equal opportunities and equal results.
" But Scott is a free market leftist, as such he appears to simply expound the problem without proposing a solution."
Who says I haven't offered a solution? isn't anarchy itself PART of a solution?
EmperorNero: Let's forget about the statist barriers to entry, since we are talking about anarchism. (Unless you are suggesting that they can never be abolished.) It's about material conditions; cultural treatment, wealth, looks, height, etc. They lead to inequality. Is that not your argument?
Yes however it depends what kind of inequality you mean? and I doubt some of the things mentioned which individuals are involved in would exist minus the state barriers.
However that was not the point I was making in my OP. In my OP ,I was saying that meritocracy- the idea individuals can rise as far as they wish based on hardwork and talent - is largely a myth (1) because currently we have statism and (2) because cultural conditions can affect that. When I call meritocracy vulgar I'm playing on words because my argument is that defending the idea that there exists meritocracy to the exclusion of (1) above is vulgar libertarianism i.e. treating the statist order as IF it were a free market meaning treating individuals which involves treating individuals as lessers because it is considered there are no barriers to success.I'm disputing that. Hopefully this clarifies.
Yes, I understand your argument. You are arguing that the notion of a meritocracy is a myth. Even in a free market.
But what is the conclusion? How is it any better in your preferred system? Without suggesting an alternative you are just pointing out that the world is imperfect. It's harder to get ahead for some than for others, sure. But would you dispute that anarcho-capitalism offers the greatest meritocracy possible? Why?
One man pointing out an imperfection can lead to another man/woman fixing it.
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
We are told individuals are free to rise as far as they desire. We live in a meritocracy after all. This is an incredibly disheartening tactic to hear from a libertarian- an alleged champion of freedom and prosperity. It’s disturbing in at least two ways.
I have never heard this before. Links?
This tendency to view the current statist quo as if it is a free market leads to the belief that there are no possible viable barriers in the way of individuals. In this view, if they have talent they should become wealthy and upper class .If not, then the reason is because they have an immoral lifestyle and parasitic habits. Without deeper thought, the poor are blamed for their condition.
Links?
These are just aesthetic preferences. However this reply is based on a great misunderstanding of what freedom is and the values it relates to. Absence of aggression against innocents(which could be called freedom) is of course valuable. But within freedom is autonomy. This link is rarely made.
So are you arguing for total nihilism? Otherwise any social conditions (including "equality") can be considered a barrier towards my autonomy and therefore my "fulfilling life."
I don't think an-caps discuss equality as a main talking point for a number of reasons. First off, on a side note, I think it could be argued that on a total market, the wage gaps that you see in today's world would close by a great number. So in that sense, it would be a "more equal" society, in terms of how the wealth is distributed in society.
Secondly, equality isn't that important many an-caps, which I don't have a problem with. I mean you can argue for or against it, but it is a different topic altogether. You can have egalitarian enclaves develop and charity could grow exponentially. But I assume most people on Mises would agree with "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature." I don't believe everybody is equal and worthy of my respect.
"One man pointing out an imperfection can lead to another man/woman fixing it."
In order to view an imperfection, there must be some picture of a desired state. This is what I don't get in regard to the OP. I don't expect him to have all the solutions, (we'd probably agree that's what a market is for.)
I'm just a lurker here, not here to argue, I just really don't understand the relationship between the perceived problem and how Scott thinks things should be.