kropotkinbeard:I'm sure he's 'relatively' sure.
I already answered the question. I see no need for you to answer it for me.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That is to say, groups of people agree to impute certain meanings to certain words. There's nothing necessary about the particular agreements made, the particular meanings imputed, or the particular words to which those meanings are imputed.
I don't understand what you've just said as all the words you're using have a different meaning from the way I'm using them. Your problem. Remember?
Torsten:There is conventions on how words arose. There is also rules on how words are to be interpreted.
Those rules are also conventions. I take "convention" here to mean "widespread mutual agreement". That in no way erases the subjectivity of it all.
Torsten:Despite the conventions meanings can still vary. Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, which isn't actually there.
Where does a meaning ever inhere in a word?
Torsten:Some words have more fixed meanings then others. There are concise and very broad words.
Again, that doesn't erase the subjectivity of it all.
Torsten:If the meaning of words can vary that much and is too relative, then we are going to have a problem with interpreting contracts and the like. Won't we?
I'm sorry but I think you're missing the point. The inherent subjectivity of meaning in no way means (no pun intended) that everyone will interpret a given word completely differently from everyone else.
kropotkinbeard:I don't understand what you've just said as all the words you're using have a different meaning from the way I'm using them. Your problem. Remember?
I originally said that it's your problem if you dislike the way someone is using certain words.
"First off, I'll note that you seem to have a problem addressing me by name. I'm puzzled as to why. Maybe I struck a nerve with you and this is your way of trying to "get back at me". If so, well, good luck with that."
@Autolykos, I have no problem addressing you by name at all. And, no, you haven't struck a nerve with me, and there's nothing to get back at you for, nor is it my style to play such games. Though had I wanted to you can rest assured that there would be no luck involved. Relax.
"Anyways, when you use the phrase "words mean nothing" above, do you mean "meanings don't inhere in words"? Or do you mean it's impossible to impute any meaning to any word"? The former is true but the latter isn't."
First, there is simply sound. When the sound is attached to some 'thing', 'concept', i.e.the 'object' of the sound, then it becomes a 'word'. This word is then simply the sound we make when referring to a given object, and should bring to mind that object. After having given the object this sound, we can then use it for communication. 'Words' i.e.the sound attached to the objects referred to then have a meaning, assuming that others plan to share the same sounds for the same objects. If not, then communication is simply not possible. If X is calling that object over there a tree, and Y is calling the same object a cup, and this is generalized to all other words, then there is simply no such thing as communication, assuming we understand what communication is, which is I'm assuming to be obvious by the fact that you are probably capable of reading and understanding the words I write now. Again, if not, then please tell me what is taking place. I'm quite interested. We decide that this thing is called a 'cat' and we call it 'cat'. If it has a trunk and wheels, it's simply not a cat. Similarly, a group of folks decided to call their theories 'libertarian' or 'anarchist', and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist. Therefore, if someone believes that capitalism is compatible with it, then they're simply not a 'libertarian' or 'anarchist'. It's quite simple.
"Also, I'll note that you've strawmanned my position."
It's possible, but highly doubtful.
"If I refer to a married person with the word "bachelor" without explaining my different definition for it, then those who expect "bachelor" to mean "an unmarried man" will understandably be confused."
Yes, I agree. You're using the term incorrectly and should fix it. It's your problem of having the term wrong, not their's for having it correct.
"However, I've always talked about specifying non-standard definitions as clearly as possible in the interests of mitigating confusion. You've ignored that part - perhaps deliberately."
Not at all. In fact, I agreed with you. I said that if someone is using a non-standard definition that they should explain it clearly as possible so that those whom understand it in its standard form can1)know what this person is talking about 2)wonder why they've decided to change the definition. Of course that's assuming that they are even aware that they're using is unconventionally, which, in the case with "anarcho"-capitalists, I don't think they do. If they do I've yet to meet a single one who has claimed that they were using the term in an unconventional way. This would mean either that 1)they actually didn't know they were using it unconventionally or 2)they knew that they were and were simply hiding the fact for some odd reason. Again, I'm interested in precisely one might do this. Perhaps it's another ruse as is the NAP, as if "non-aggression" were really the issue, which it's not. But that's a different difficulty.
"Finally, I'll note that you use the phrase "the folks who think he's using the term 'bachelor' incorrectly" rather than something like "the folks who use the term 'bachelor' correctly" - which implies that you do understand that correct/incorrect usage of a word is a matter of opinion/convention, rather than some inherent truth."
"Inherent truth"? I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. We haven't even started discussing 'truth' yet. We can though if you wish. We could start with why one would consciously not wish to use a term correctly, and what role "truth" plays in their deceit, again, assuing that they're aware that they're even doing it, which, as I said, I don't believe they are. And words are absolutely nothing BUT for convention, which is different than opinion. My entire argument has been that language is for nothing but communication. This is why we decide for words to mean certain things. This is why you can read and understand what I'm writing right now. Has nothing to do with the little squiggles typed onto the page. It has to do with your understanding what I'm trying to get you to understand via use of those squiggles called words, which also have sounds, which are equally as arbitrary. So, it's quite important that we agree upon what the squiggles and sounds refer to. If not, again, you could understand nothing of what I've just written. It's therefore a good idea that when I say I want to drink a 'beer', a term agreed upon by most people, that you don't hand me a 'hammer' a sound which is not used for that thing with Bass Ale written in the side of the bottle. Similarly, when I use the term 'libertarian' or 'anarchist' it's a good idea that you understand that this means a person who is anti-capitalist, as has always been the case. Or, as you say, you can teach all of those folks who are still using the conventional/traditional meaning, as created by the folks who used it that way, that you've using it unconventionally. However, I don't really believe this to be the problem. I believe the problem lies in the fact that those using it unconventionally are clueless that this is what they are doing. It is therefore for this reason that I feel compelled to help straighten out their misunderstanding. And for free!
"I originally said that it's your problem if you dislike the way someone is using certain words." Autolykos
Why would it be "my problem" simply because I don't like hearing someone using a word incorrectly? Has nothing to do with my having a "problem". It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category of "anarcho"-capitalst, not being aware of it. Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
kropotkinbeard: Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note. Then the person with an "ear for music" would have the problem of being a masochist for continuing to listen to the horrible note "over and over again". No one would have a problem if he simply left the room (unless he owned it, in which case he would kindly ask the violinist to leave). Property rights evolved as means toward peaceful conflict resolution (minimizing problems) -- the ultimate incarnation of "live and let live". | Post Points: 20
Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
I think I'll jump in here. I hope no one minds.
Torsten: There is conventions on how words arose. There is also rules on how words are to be interpreted.
Autolykos
"Those rules are also conventions. I take "convention" here to mean "widespread mutual agreement". That in no way erases the subjectivity of it all."
Subjectivity is a given and not really of much interest. Yes, we all have different heads, brains, etc...So what? If your "subjectivity" and my "subjectivity" don't agree upon what a word means, then there are problems. But, for the most part, we do agree upon the vast majority of words and meanings.
Torsten: Despite the conventions meanings can still vary. Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, which isn't actually there.
"Where does a meaning ever inhere in a word?"
I agree with Torsten on this one (and others). Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, AND sentences, which isn't/aren't there, such as attempting to argue that libertarians are pro-capitalist. But again I think one must be careful as sophistry, at least to me, sort of implies that the person doing it is doing it consciously. This would of course be different than were a person just using the term incorrectly.
Regarding your question, meaning inheres in the fact that when I say "cat" and the idea of a little furry four-legged thing pops into your head, presumably, the words has a meaning i.e.something which you can understand. If it didn't, and perhaps basketball popped into your head upon hearing cat, well, then we have a breakdown of language.
Torsten: Some words have more fixed meanings then others. There are concise and very broad words.
"Again, that doesn't erase the subjectivity of it all."
Where have you gotten that Torsten would believe that subjectivity was erased? Did I miss something?
Torsten: If the meaning of words can vary that much and is too relative, then we are going to have a problem with interpreting contracts and the like. Won't we?
autolykos
"I'm sorry but I think you're missing the point. The inherent subjectivity of meaning in no way means (no pun intended) that everyone will interpret a given word completely differently from everyone else."
Again, what does subjectivity have to do with this at all then? Secondly, what do you mean when you say "inherent subjectivity"? Thirdly, it sounds like what you've just explained is objectivity, regardless of the sound which is applied to the object. Or are you simply trying to argue that "2+2 = 4" is objective, and must be for everyone, whereas the term "cat" is only subjective because there's nothing inherent in the notion of cat which is on par with necessary truth of 2+2=4?
kropotkinbeard:One can't be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period. Now, there are several ways to deal with this inconvient fact if you're a capitalist looking for a way to square a circle, that is, hijack the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but, unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional. Another way is to simply ignore this inherent conflict, take the anti-authoritarian aspects (thinking of them as being primarily anti-state) of anarchism/libertarianism, and pretend that this is "libertarian" or "anarchist", which it is not. We've already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing, and that calling oneself bachelor, if he is married, isn't a problem for him, but rather a problem for the folks who think he's using the term "bachelor" incorrectly. If you assume this "logic", yeah, you could be a capitalist and anti-authoritarian in the same way as you could be married and a bachelor.
kropotkinbeard:@Autolykos, I have no problem addressing you by name at all.
Then why didn't you before?
kropotkinbeard:And, no, you haven't struck a nerve with me, and there's nothing to get back at you for, nor is it my style to play such games. Though had I wanted to you can rest assured that there would be no luck involved [sic]. Relax.
I've been relaxed this whole time. But I'm not inclined to believe anything you say here.
kropotkinbeard:First, there is simply sound. When the sound is attached to some 'thing', 'concept', i.e.the 'object' of the sound, then it becomes a 'word'. This word is then simply the sound we make when referring to a given object, and should bring to mind that object. After having given the object this sound, we can then use it for communication. 'Words' i.e.the sound attached to the objects referred to then have a meaning, assuming that others plan to share the same sounds for the same objects. If not, then communication is simply not possible. If X is calling that object over there a tree, and Y is calling the same object a cup, and this is generalized to all other words, then there is simply no such thing as communication, assuming we understand what communication is, which is I'm assuming to be obvious by the fact that you are probably capable of reading and understanding the words I write now. Again, if not, then please tell me what is taking place. I'm quite interested. We decide that this thing is called a 'cat' and we call it 'cat'. If it has a trunk and wheels, it's simply not a cat. Similarly, a group of folks decided to call their theories 'libertarian' or 'anarchist', and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist. Therefore, if someone believes that capitalism is compatible with it, then they're simply not a 'libertarian' or 'anarchist'. It's quite simple. [Emphasis added.]
The funny thing to me is that you're supporting my point with most of the above, however unintentionally that may be. However, it's certainly possible for someone to attach a sound (really a particular combination of sounds) to a different object or concept from the one he's used to attaching it to. His willingness to do so in any given situation is another matter entirely.
Let's say I'm trying to communicate with someone and I don't understand what he's saying. He points at a closed door and says, "La puerta está cierta." I shrug my shoulders, not understanding. He walks over to the door and pats it with his hand. "La puerta," he says. So I figure that's his way of referring to the door. He opens it and says, "Está abierta." Then he closes it and says, "Está cierta." So I figure the latter is his way of referring to the door being closed. "La puerta está cierta," I say, and he smiles and nods his head. "The door is closed," I then say, to inform him of my way of referring to the same thing.
Now, which way of referring to the closed door is correct? The concept remains the same, but each of us has a different way of expressing it. In order to communicate, either I must use his way of expressing things, or he must use mine. Who uses which doesn't matter. What I think you're doing is insisting that I use your way of expressing certain things rather than vice-versa. You think that should be the case because you believe your way of expressing those things has been around longer. The thing is, I don't have to care about that - not to the same extent that you do, and in fact, not at all. Furthermore, I don't have to care about communicating with you, period.
You say that "a group of folks decided to call their theories 'libertarian' or 'anarchist', and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist". Okay. How does that prevent a separate group of folks from calling their different theories by the same terms? The answer is that it doesn't. Do you believe the first group somehow owns the words "libertarian" and "anarchist", thus giving them the right to compel others to use those words the way they want them to be used?
kropotkinbeard:It's possible [that I've strawmanned your position], but highly doubtful [sic].
You can doubt it all you want. As far as I'm concerned, you've definitely strawmanned my position. It's up to you whether to (try to) convince me otherwise - if you even care about that.
kropotkinbeard:Yes, I agree. You're using the term incorrectly [sic] and should fix it [sic]. It's your problem of having the term wrong [sic], not their's for having it correct [sic].
Nowhere did I assert that I'd be using the term "bachelor" incorrectly, so your statement that you agree is tantamount to putting words in my mouth. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. As I see it, there's a big difference between "using a word in a way that differs from one or more other people's usage" and "using a word in a (factually) incorrect manner". The former is possible, while the latter is not. Words don't attach themselves to objects/concepts, and objects/concepts don't attach themselves to words.
kropotkinbeard:Not at all. In fact, I agreed with you. I said that if someone is using a non-standard definition that they should explain it clearly as possible so that those whom understand it in its standard form can1)know what this person is talking about 2)wonder why they've decided to change the definition. Of course that's assuming that they are even aware that they're using is unconventionally, which, in the case with "anarcho"-capitalists, I don't think they do. If they do I've yet to meet a single one who has claimed that they were using the term in an unconventional way. This would mean either that 1)they actually didn't know they were using it unconventionally or 2)they knew that they were and were simply hiding the fact for some odd reason. Again, I'm interested in precisely one might do this. Perhaps it's another ruse as is the NAP, as if "non-aggression" were really the issue, which it's not [sic]. But that's a different difficulty.
First off, I'll again note that I see a big difference between using a word unconventionally and using a word incorrectly. To me, the former in no way implies the latter. Second, what exactly makes the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" that you happen to like the conventional definitions? As I see it, those definitions are no more conventional than the ones that I happen to like. Furthermore, just what "convention" are you talking about here? That is, what specific group of people are you placing under consideration?
kropotkinbeard:"Inherent truth"? I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. We haven't even started discussing 'truth' yet. We can though if you wish. We could start with why one would consciously not wish to use a term correctly [sic], and what role "truth" plays in their deceit [sic], again, assuing that they're aware that they're even doing it, which, as I said, I don't believe they are. And words are absolutely nothing BUT for convention, which is different than opinion [sic]. My entire argument has been that language is for nothing but communication. This is why we decide for words to mean certain things. This is why you can read and understand what I'm writing right now. Has nothing to do with the little squiggles typed onto the page. It has to do with your understanding what I'm trying to get you to understand via use of those squiggles called words, which also have sounds, which are equally as arbitrary. So, it's quite important that we agree upon what the squiggles and sounds refer to. If not, again, you could understand nothing of what I've just written. It's therefore a good idea [sic] that when I say I want to drink a 'beer', a term agreed upon by most people, that you don't hand me a 'hammer' a sound which is not used for that thing with Bass Ale written in the side of the bottle. Similarly, when I use the term 'libertarian' or 'anarchist' it's a good idea that you understand that this means [sic] a person who is anti-capitalist, as has always been the case [sic]. Or, as you say, you can teach all of those folks who are still using the conventional/traditional meaning [sic], as created by the folks who used it that way, that you've using it unconventionally. However, I don't really believe this to be the problem. I believe the problem lies in the fact that those using it unconventionally are clueless that this is what they are doing. It is therefore for this reason that I feel compelled to help straighten out their misunderstanding [sic]. And for free! [Emphasis added.]
Apparently you do know what I'm talking about with my use of the phrase "inherent truth". But how is convention different from opinion? I see no qualitative difference - a convention is simply a situation where "most" people have the same or similar opinions on something. How is one bound to follow a given convention? He isn't. It's not incorrect in a factual sense to not follow a given convention. Factual correctness/incorrectness simply doesn't apply to that.
Furthermore, I don't think the convention you have in mind is that commonly known as "the English language". Rather, I think the convention you have in mind is the group of people who use the same definitions for "libertarian" and "anarchist" that you use. I imagine that's a much smaller convention than "the English language". So as I see it, this all boils down to you and your ilk wanting to control how people in general define those words. The funny thing is (at least IMO), such control is impossible, so you're chasing after an illusion. Once again, good luck with that.
kropotkinbeard:Why would it be "my problem" simply because I don't like hearing someone using a word incorrectly?
Because you're the one who doesn't like it.
kropotkinbeard:Has nothing to do with my having a "problem".
Sure it does. It has everything to do with it.
kropotkinbeard:It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category [sic] of "anarcho"-capitalst, not being aware of it.
What problem is that, exactly? Oh, right - the problem of using a definition that you don't like for a certain word. But that's actually your problem, because, as I said before, you're the one who doesn't like the definition they're using! They apparently have no problem with it.
kropotkinbeard:Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong [sic] note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
The wrongness of the violinist's note is not a fact. It's a subjective value judgement imputed by the listener. So that makes it the listener's problem. Thanks for supporting my point (however unintentionally).
"Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note." kropotkinbeard
"Then the person with an "ear for music" would have the problem of being a masochist for continuing to listen to the horrible note "over and over again". No one would have a problem if he simply left the room (unless he owned it, in which case he would kindly ask the violinist to leave). Property rights evolved as means toward peaceful conflict resolution (minimizing problems) -- the ultimate incarnation of "live and let live"."
Again, it has nothing to do with him having a problem any more than it would be a problem for me to hear my Japanese students making the same mistakes over and over. It's not 'a problem' for me at all. It's a problem for them as they're making mistakes over and over. They need to study more so as not to make the same mistakes. When they've done this, and are not making the same mistakes, the problem is gone.
Also, yes, if everyone left the room the violinist would still have the problem of playing the wrong note, regardless of whether he was aware of it or not.
Not sure what the notion of "property rights" has to do with anything being discussed here. Was there some connection? But, yes, creating rights in order to put the brakes on pillaging and plundering probably had a few positive results. But then again property has probably caused much more harm in the world than it has prevented. Also, owning "property" means taking from others, which, is of course 'theft' and infringing upon other's freedom and rights. Are we discussing "personal property", "land", "intellectual", or what? Personally claiming something which belongs to everyone is nothing but theft.
kropotkinbeard:Subjectivity is a given and not really of much interest. Yes, we all have different heads, brains, etc...So what? If your "subjectivity" and my "subjectivity" don't agree upon what a word means, then there are problems. But, for the most part, we do agree upon the vast majority of words and meanings.
If you actually agree that all definitions are subjective (regardless of how many people agree on which definitions), then what are we arguing about? Apparently it's really all about what leftists call "power relations", which is what their version of "raising awareness" is all about. That is, you and your ilk are trying to "gain power" over me and my ilk where we're somehow forced to use the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" that you and your ilk happen to prefer. Good luck with that.
kropotkinbeard:I agree with Torsten on this one (and others). Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, AND sentences, which isn't/aren't there [sic], such as attempting to argue that libertarians are pro-capitalist. But again I think one must be careful as sophistry, at least to me, sort of implies that the person doing it is doing it consciously. This would of course be different than were a person just using the term incorrectly [sic]. Regarding your question, meaning inheres in the fact that when I say "cat" and the idea of a little furry four-legged thing pops into your head, presumably, the [word] has a meaning i.e.something which you can understand. If it didn't, and perhaps basketball popped into your head upon hearing cat, well, then we have a breakdown of language.
Regarding your question, meaning inheres in the fact that when I say "cat" and the idea of a little furry four-legged thing pops into your head, presumably, the [word] has a meaning i.e.something which you can understand. If it didn't, and perhaps basketball popped into your head upon hearing cat, well, then we have a breakdown of language.
If the image of a basketball popped into my head when I hear "cat", then it's still a word with a meaning. It just has a different meaning to me from the meaning it has to you. Nothing about a cat itself requires "cat" to be used to refer to it. Likewise, nothing about "cat" itself requires it to be used to refer to a cat.
kropotkinbeard:Where have you gotten that Torsten would believe that subjectivity was erased? Did I miss something?
You may have. To me, the notion of "using a word correctly/incorrectly" erases subjectivity from the whole thing. Likewise, it seemed that his appeal to some words having more fixed meanings than others was meant as a counter to the idea that definitions are subjective.
kropotkinbeard:Again, what does subjectivity have to do with this at all then? Secondly, what do you mean when you say "inherent subjectivity"? Thirdly, it sounds like what you've just explained is objectivity, regardless of the sound which is applied to the object. Or are you simply trying to argue that "2+2 = 4" is objective, and must be for everyone, whereas the term "cat" is only subjective because there's nothing inherent in the notion of cat which is on par with necessary truth of 2+2=4?
Yes, that's what I'm trying to argue. Like I said before, nothing about "cat" requires it to be used to refer to a cat, and nothing about a cat requires "cat" to be used to refer to it. (Strictly speaking, of course, "2", "4", "+", and "=" are symbols just as much as "cat" is.)
kropotkinbeard: Also, yes, if everyone left the room the violinist would still have the problem of playing the wrong note, regardless of whether he was aware of it or not. Interesting. So someone could "have a problem" while being completely unaware of it? If not his, then whose is the problem that the violinist apparently "has"? Not sure what the notion of "property rights" has to do with anything being discussed here. Well they did nicely resolve any problem you may have with a vilonist not playing according to your taste, no? But, yes, creating rights in order to put the brakes on pillaging and plundering probably had a few positive results. How do you think rights get "created"? Who creates them, in your opinion? But then again property has probably caused much more harm in the world than it has prevented. Without the concepts of property and voluntary exchange of same (including division of labor and trade) neither of us would be alive today, much less being able to discuss this on laptops via the internetz. Also, owning "property" means taking from others, which, is of course 'theft' and infringing upon other's freedom and rights. What freedoms and rights would those be? Where did they come from? Are we discussing "personal property", "land", "intellectual", or what? Personally claiming something which belongs to everyone is nothing but theft. How could something belong to anyone if the concept of property was non-existent? Define "everyone". | Post Points: 5
Interesting. So someone could "have a problem" while being completely unaware of it? If not his, then whose is the problem that the violinist apparently "has"?
Not sure what the notion of "property rights" has to do with anything being discussed here.
Well they did nicely resolve any problem you may have with a vilonist not playing according to your taste, no?
But, yes, creating rights in order to put the brakes on pillaging and plundering probably had a few positive results.
How do you think rights get "created"? Who creates them, in your opinion?
But then again property has probably caused much more harm in the world than it has prevented.
Without the concepts of property and voluntary exchange of same (including division of labor and trade) neither of us would be alive today, much less being able to discuss this on laptops via the internetz.
Also, owning "property" means taking from others, which, is of course 'theft' and infringing upon other's freedom and rights.
What freedoms and rights would those be? Where did they come from?
Are we discussing "personal property", "land", "intellectual", or what? Personally claiming something which belongs to everyone is nothing but theft.
How could something belong to anyone if the concept of property was non-existent? Define "everyone".
kropotkinbeard: Why would it be "my problem" simply because I don't like hearing someone using a word incorrectly?
"Because you're the one who doesn't like it."
This doesn't make it my problem at all. If a student keeps making mistakes over and over, and I don't like it because it anoys me, and I want them to not make the mistakes, it's not my problem in any way, shape, or form. It's their problem, and once they correct it, their problem goes away and I'm no longer annoyed by their mistakes. And, no, my having been annoyed wasn't a problem at all.
kropotkinbeard: Has nothing to do with my having a "problem".
"Sure it does. It has everything to do with it."
No, it doesn't. And that wasn't an argument. Or perhaps you're saying that it would be a problem for you?
kropotkinbeard: It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category [sic] of "anarcho"-capitalst, not being aware of it.
"What problem is that, exactly? Oh, right - the problem of using a definition that you don't like for a certain word. But that's actually your problem, because, as I said before, you're the one who doesn't like the definition they're using!" They apparently have no problem with it."
And, you're still having difficulty here. It has nothing to do with "using a definition I don't like". It has nothing to do with my "liking" it or not. It has to do with a person not using the term correctly. Again, this is their problem. Here, let's try to make it simple: A guy comes running out of his apartment screaming "Apple! Apple!" Everyone passing by looks at him as if he's insane. He looks back at them not understanding their seemingly unconcerned response. Meanwhile, his apartment burns down because no one understood his "subjective" and unconventional usage of the term "apple", thereby not being able to get the assitance that he would surely have gotten had he used the appropriate term "fire". Hence, this IS his problem, and not the problem of the folks who may have been slightly annoyed by his pathological behavior.
kropotkinbeard: Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong [sic] note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
"The wrongness of the violinist's note is not a fact."
Yes, it is a fact. The note was written on the page. There was a correct way to play it and an incorrect. He didn't hit the correct note. Period. This is a fact. But I guess if he just "subjectively" wants to read the notes in an unconventional way, then it's everyone else's problem, right? Again, not quite. The violinist has a problem and needs to correct it. Or he can be dishonest and claim to have been purposely playing atonal music because he didn't have to do what the "collective" orchestra did. You know, thinking this demonstrated some sort of "freedom" and "liberty" from the "tyranny of the musician majority"?
"It's a subjective value judgement imputed by the listener."
Has nothing to do with "value" anything, nor is it subjective. It's an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper. The listeners heard correctly, and they heard the wrong note. Then, upon looking at the sheet music just to make sure that note wasn't supposed to be played, they see that they were correct, and te violinist was wrong. Hence, it was his problem, and he should fix it.
"So that makes it the listener's problem. Thanks for supporting my point (however unintentionally)"
Again, you spoke before knowing what you were doing. This is your problem as well. None of the listeners had a problem at all. They simply recognized the violinists problem. They probably all pitched in to then try and get him extra lessons so as to assist when helping him to remove his problem.
Now, you've been working very hard at not responding to the most relevant arguments I've made, one being that of our apparent ability to communicate without objectivity in language. You asserted earlier, most definitely before thinking it through, that language was relative. Now, explain how communication takes place?
kropotkinbeard:This doesn't make it my problem at all.
Well technically, it depends on how you define "problem". You don't think being annoyed with something is a problem for you?
kropotkinbeard:If a student keeps making mistakes over and over, and I don't like it because it anoys me, and I want them to not make the mistakes, it's not my problem in any way, shape, or form.
I disagree. Generally speaking, your problem is that you're annoyed that the student keeps doing something that you don't expect him to do.
kropotkinbeard:It's their problem, and once they correct it, their problem goes away and I'm no longer annoyed by their mistakes. And, no, my having been annoyed wasn't a problem at all.
Would you say that the student made you feel annoyed? Is that why you think your annoyance is his problem and not yours?
kropotkinbeard:No, it doesn't. And that wasn't an argument. Or perhaps you're saying that it would be a problem for you?
No, I was saying that I disagree with you, and that I have a different point of view.
kropotkinbeard:And, you're still having difficulty here.
I am? That's news to me. I don't feel like I'm having difficulty. I guess you know better than I do, though.
kropotkinbeard:It has nothing to do with "using a definition I don't like". It has nothing to do with my "liking" it or not. It has to do with a person not using the term correctly [sic]. Again, this is their problem [sic]. Here, let's try to make it simple: A guy comes running out of his apartment screaming "Apple! Apple!" Everyone passing by looks at him as if he's insane. He looks back at them not understanding their seemingly unconcerned response. Meanwhile, his apartment burns down because no one understood his "subjective" and unconventional usage of the term "apple", thereby not being able to get the assitance that he would surely have gotten had he used the appropriate term "fire". Hence, this IS his problem, and not the problem of the folks who may have been slightly annoyed by his pathological behavior [sic].
Sure, his apartment burning down is his problem. But if a person is annoyed by him screaming "Apple! Apple!", that's that person's problem (as I see it).
kropotkinbeard:Yes, it is a fact. The note was written on the page. There was a correct way to play it and an incorrect. He didn't hit the correct note. Period. This is a fact.
What's a fact is that a particular note was written down, and that the violinist did not play that note. Now, if you're defining the term "playing correctly" as "playing the notes as written", then no, the violinist did not play correctly. But no one's bound to use that definition for "playing correctly". Furthermore, no one's bound to be annoyed when the violinist doesn't "play correctly" under that definition.
kropotkinbeard:But I guess if he just "subjectively" wants to read the notes in an unconventional way, then it's everyone else's problem, right? Again, not quite. The violinist has a problem and needs to correct it. Or he can be dishonest [sic] and claim to have been purposely playing atonal music because he didn't have to do what the "collective" orchestra did. You know, thinking this demonstrated some sort of "freedom" and "liberty" from the "tyranny of the musician majority"?
Whether a person is annoyed by something is up to him, isn't it? That's what makes it his problem, in my view. And I fail to see how not living up to someone else's expectations necessarily constitutes "being dishonest".
kropotkinbeard:Has nothing to do with "value" anything, nor is it subjective.
Yes it is. No one has to define "playing correctly" the way you (apparently) define it.
kropotkinbeard:It's an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper [sic]. The listeners heard correctly [sic], and they heard the wrong note [sic]. Then, upon looking at the sheet music just to make sure that note wasn't supposed to be played, they see that they were correct [sic], and te violinist was wrong [sic]. Hence, it was his problem, and he should fix it [sic].
It's an objective fact that certain notes were written on the paper. It may also be an objective fact that one or more other people expected the violinist to play certain notes at certain times (i.e. notes consistent with what was written down). However, there's no correctness nor incorrectness with having that expectation per se. That is to say, expectations exist entirely within the mind - in other words, they're subjective. Here's another way to put it: the notes themselves have no expectations, let alone any ability to will a person to do anything.
kropotkinbeard:Again, you spoke before knowing what you were doing. This is your problem as well.
I don't see myself as having a problem here. You asserting otherwise is not going to change that.
kropotkinbeard:None of the listeners had a problem at all [sic]. They simply recognized the violinists problem [sic]. They probably all pitched in to then try and get him extra lessons so as to assist when helping him to remove his problem [sic].
I disagree. I see their annoyance as their problem. The violinist isn't responsible for that.
kropotkinbeard:Now, you've been working very hard at not responding to the most relevant arguments I've made [sic], one being that of our apparent ability to communicate without objectivity in language. You asserted earlier, most definitely before thinking it through [sic], that language was relative. Now, explain how communication takes place?
We've already covered how communication takes place, I believe. (I think you missed a couple posts I made, namely this one and this one.) You're simply dissatisfied (annoyed?) that I'm not acting in accordance with your expectations. You furthermore think this is my problem, as though your dissatisfaction somehow obligates me to act differently. Good luck with that.
The hilarious thing, as I see it, is that you call yourself "anti-authoritarian", yet you're clearly trying to make me feel as though you have some sort of authority over me.
By Johnny Doe in Political Theory
kropotkinbeard: One can't be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period. Now, there are several ways to deal with this inconvient fact if you're a capitalist looking for a way to square a circle, that is, hijack the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but, unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional. Another way is to simply ignore this inherent conflict, take the anti-authoritarian aspects (thinking of them as being primarily anti-state) of anarchism/libertarianism, and pretend that this is "libertarian" or "anarchist", which it is not. We've already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing, and that calling oneself bachelor, if he is married, isn't a problem for him, but rather a problem for the folks who think he's using the term "bachelor" incorrectly. If you assume this "logic", yeah, you could be a capitalist and anti-authoritarian in the same way as you could be married and a bachelor.
"Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?"
Well, it depends on whether or not one believes that hierarchical relationships are a good thing. Libertarians/anarchist/socialist/communist usually do not believe them to be a good thing, as such relationships are antithetical to liberty and freedom. If there is a choice between starving or selling your labor for someone else to profit off of, then it is not really "voluntary". It's coercion, to use one of the favorite terms of the phony libertarian i.e.propertarians. Allowing someone to choose between masters is hardly any sort of "freedom" in any real sense. This is just trivially basic libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist thought, and always has been. Secondly, if the society is a free and functioning democracy, as any anarchist would demand as the absolute first step, and for obvious reasons, there is no "us"(the people) vs. "them"(the government) dichotomy. This is a false dichotomy. Besides, capitalism has never functioned at all with a state to support it other than in a few 4th world messes around the world, so I'm not sure how on earth anyone would ever dream of moving more in that direction. If there exists a "hierarchical" stucture of any kind any anarchist would simply be against it, as would any libertarian. Different people may have different responsibilities arranged horizontally, but vertical is out, unless that is, everyone votes to have a hierarchical scenario. But what rational person would every dream of doing that? Surely no one to which freedom and liberty are important.
If there is a choice between starving or selling your labor for someone else to profit off of, then it is not really "voluntary"
kropotkinbeard:Re: To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians? By Johnny Doe in Political Theory "Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?" Well, it depends on whether or not one believes that hierarchical relationships are a good thing. Libertarians/anarchist/socialist/communist usually do not believe them to be a good thing, as such relationships are antithetical to liberty and freedom. If there is a choice between starving or selling your labor for someone else to profit off of, then it is not really "voluntary".
Well, it depends on whether or not one believes that hierarchical relationships are a good thing. Libertarians/anarchist/socialist/communist usually do not believe them to be a good thing, as such relationships are antithetical to liberty and freedom. If there is a choice between starving or selling your labor for someone else to profit off of, then it is not really "voluntary".
kropotkinbeard:It's coercion, to use one of the favorite terms of the phony libertarian i.e.propertarians. Allowing someone to choose between masters is hardly any sort of "freedom" in any real sense. This is just trivially basic libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist thought, and always has been. Secondly, if the society is a free and functioning democracy, as any anarchist would demand as the absolute first step, and for obvious reasons, there is no "us"(the people) vs. "them"(the government) dichotomy.
kropotkinbeard:This is a false dichotomy. Besides, capitalism has never functioned at all with a state to support it other than in a few 4th world messes around the world, so I'm not sure how on earth anyone would ever dream of moving more in that direction.
kropotkinbeard:If there exists a "hierarchical" stucture of any kind any anarchist would simply be against it, as would any libertarian. Different people may have different responsibilities arranged horizontally, but vertical is out, unless that is, everyone votes to have a hierarchical scenario. But what rational person would every dream of doing that? Surely no one to which freedom and liberty are important.
kropotkinbeard: This doesn't make it my problem at all.
"Well technically, it depends on how you define "problem". You don't think being annoyed with something is a problem for you?"
Nope. It might be if the source of the annoyance was myself and I couldn't seem to be able to do anything about it. When someone else has a problem, that's precisely what it is i.e.their problem. These could overlap in various way, but not really in anything mentioned thus far. If a guy is hitting a wrong note in the orchestra, and he can't fix it, he has the problem, regardless of the fact that his note makes others cringe. Basically, it's the same cringe response an actual libertarian/anarchist/communist has when hearing one referring to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalist.
kropotkinbeard: If a student keeps making mistakes over and over, and I don't like it because it anoys me, and I want them to not make the mistakes, it's not my problem in any way, shape, or form.
"I disagree. Generally speaking, your problem is that you're annoyed that the student keeps doing something that you don't expect him to do."
I have no problem. I'll let you know when it's a problem for me. His mistakes are his problem. But of course if I can help him repair his problem this would be a benefit mostly for him, and secondarily me, though this isn't really the important thing. I mean, assuming the 'virtue of selflessness' is properly in tact. And as I'm the conductor of the orchestra, yes, I don't expect his problem to bring down the quality of the overall sound of the orchestra. Therefore, as a mechanic doesn't get angry at an engine which isn't working well, especially if it's someone else's car, and does not have any problem at all (the car owner does), he simply goes about trying to help the owner with his problem.
kropotkinbeard: It's their problem, and once they correct it, their problem goes away and I'm no longer annoyed by their mistakes. And, no, my having been annoyed wasn't a problem at all.
"Would you say that the student made you feel annoyed? Is that why you think your annoyance is his problem and notyours?"
No, I would say that the students preventable mistake i.e.problem, made me annoyed, though it probably wouldn't even reach this point for a while. And if he kept making the same mistake for 5 more years, and I cringed every time he hit the wrong note, it would still have nothing whatsoever to being a problem for me. He has a problem, similar to those whom mistakenly think of themselves as libertarians, and yet believe that capitalism is not only acceptable, but a good thing. It is NOT my problem that they're making a mistake. Now, I can easily think up scenarios in which this could be the case. Just nothing being discussed here so far demands this.
kropotkinbeard: No, it doesn't. And that wasn't an argument. Or perhaps you're saying that it would be a problem for you?
"No, I was saying that I disagree with you, and that I have a different point of view."
That's fine. There are many people with different points of view. Some folks believe the world is flat, which is a different point of view. They're wrong. Period. I mean, unless evidence to support thier pint of view has emerged recently which would lead me to believe otherwise. I'm open for the evidence though.
kropotkinbeard: And, you're still having difficulty here.
"I am? That's news to me. I don't feel like I'm having difficulty."
Yes, I know. As I said, this is, or may be, a problem for you. Alcoholics often don't believe they have drinking problems either.
"I guess you know better than I do, though."
Well, why on earth would you think I or anyone else couldn't? If I, as a therapist and addiction specilist, know for a fact that a person drinks 3 liters of whiskey every day, and obviously has a drinking problem, and yet they don't believe they do, you don't think it's possible that I might know better than them? I don't mean to suggest that you're an alcoholic. Just as an example. Maybe. Also, would it really be my problem for simply recognizing that the person was an alcoholic, regardless if his drunken behavior was obnoxious and annoying from time to time. Not really a problem for me at all.
kropotkinbeard: It has nothing to do with "using a definition I don't like". It has nothing to do with my "liking" it or not. It has to do with a person not using the term correctly [sic]. Again, this is their problem [sic]. Here, let's try to make it simple: A guy comes running out of his apartment screaming "Apple! Apple!" Everyone passing by looks at him as if he's insane. He looks back at them not understanding their seemingly unconcerned response. Meanwhile, his apartment burns down because no one understood his "subjective" and unconventional usage of the term "apple", thereby not being able to get the assitance that he would surely have gotten had he used the appropriate term "fire". Hence, this IS his problem, and not the problem of the folks who may have been slightly annoyed by his pathological behavior [sic].
"Sure, his apartment burning down is his problem. But if a person is annoyed by him screaming "Apple! Apple!", that's that person's problem (as I see it)."
A guy running out of a building screaming "Apple! Apple!" is anyone else's problem? Really? I mean, if he ran out and tackled someone, then perhaps his problem is becoming someone else's problem. But short of that I don't really see it as a problem for anyone else. They may wonder why society has allowed such a person to live openly and apparently without supervision which should have prevented such behavior, and then perhaps demand that "the state" assist him, assuming no "volunteers" came to his rescue.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, it is a fact. The note was written on the page. There was a correct way to play it and an incorrect. He didn't hit the correct note. Period. This is a fact.
"What's a fact is that a particular note was written down, and that the violinist did not play that note."
Yes, that's what I said. And that his finger just can't sem to hit that note is his problem.
"Now, if you're defining the term "playing correctly" as "playing the notes as written", then no, the violinist did not play correctly."
That's all I said. There was an objective way of reading the music. He either ignored it, or he simply can't do it. Both are probelms for him.
"But no one's bound to use that definition for "playing correctly"."
If they're using written sheet music which demands a certain discipline and skill in hitting the correct notes, then, yes, they are bound to that. If they wish to just make up a bunch of atonal noises and demand that this is their freedom, then, yes, they can do that, too. It would still be their problem, and they would not be playing correctly. You're getting back to your relativist position. There IS an agreed upon set of notations on the sheet music. And you ARE going to have to hit those notes if you're going to be playing correctly. What you are NOT allowed to do is to hit whatever notes you want, and then try and claim that these notes are subjectively correct for me, and that it's the other folks problem of they don't accept my position. This is utter nonsense.
"Furthermore, no one's bound to be annoyed when the violinist doesn't "play correctly" under that definition."
Yeah, that definition is incorrect. There is ONE defintion. There are notes on a score, and they must be hit correctly if the scores is to sound as the conductor wishes for it to. Folks have every right to become annoyed when someone's problem keep recurring, especially if they see no reason why they should repair it. Persisting on playing the wrong note over and over doesn't make one a radical. It makes them incompetent. Again, they need help.
kropotkinbeard: But I guess if he just "subjectively" wants to read the notes in an unconventional way, then it's everyone else's problem, right? Again, not quite. The violinist has a problem and needs to correct it. Or he can be dishonest [sic] and claim to have been purposely playing atonal music because he didn't have to do what the "collective" orchestra did. You know, thinking this demonstrated some sort of "freedom" and "liberty" from the "tyranny of the musician majority"?
"Whether a person is annoyed by something is up to him, isn't it? That's what makes it his problem, in my view. And I fail to see how not living up to someone else's expectations necessarily constitutes "being dishonest".
Actually, I don't believe most people usually decide to be or not to be annoyed, though with thorough meditation some annoyances can probably be reduced. I don't know what the theird sentence is referring to. I've already said that the folks who mistakenly refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists are probably not being dishonest because they aren't really aware that they're making the mistake. Were the fully aware, and then just chose to use the term incorrectly, well, that's a different problem they have which needs to be worked on, and it does have to do with dishonesty.
kropotkinbeard: Has nothing to do with "value" anything, nor is it subjective.
"Yes it is. No one has to define "playing correctly" the way you (apparently) define it."
Of course they don't have to. Again, they can choose to be wrong. And, again, this is a mistake they should fix, unless they like making mistakes. They don't have to define "cat" the way I do either. And if they call the thing with wheels on it over there "cat", which they're free to do, then they're simply wrong.
kropotkinbeard: It's an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper [sic]. The listeners heard correctly [sic], and they heard the wrong note [sic]. Then, upon looking at the sheet music just to make sure that note wasn't supposed to be played, they see that they were correct [sic], and te violinist was wrong [sic]. Hence, it was his problem, and he should fix it [sic].
"It's an objective fact that certain notes were written on the paper. It may also be an objective fact that one or more other people expected the violinist to play certain notes at certain times (i.e. notes consistent with what was written down)."
Of course one or more people expected this. In fact, everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. And were he to hit the wrong note, then that his problem, and he should do his best the next time to fix it.
"However, there's no correctness nor incorrectness with having that expectation per se."
Well, actually, if people know the song, they know the notes which are to be played at what time, they know which notes are correct and which ones aren't, then, yes, there is a correctness to their expectation because they know what the correct note is and they expect it to be played. If they expect he may hit the wrong note because he looks nervous and this is his first performance, and he hits it, then they were correct, and the only way for them to be correct is to be able to compare the correct note with the one they actually knew he was supposed to hit.
"That is to say, expectations exist entirely within the mind - in other words, they're subjective."
Okay, then we should say that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the objectively correct note which he didn't. Either way, it's the guy who hit the wrong notes problem, unless, he just doesn't care or something.
"Here's another way to put it: the notes themselves have no expectations, let alone any ability to will a person to do anything."
Of course the notes don't. They're irrelevant in and of themselves. They're relevant in the sense that they've been order in a particular way in which a particular composer wants them arranged. Therefore, there ARE correct notes and incorrect notes. Same goes with language as I've been saying since the beginning. The sound or written word is meaningless unless we decide that it means something. So, when we decide to call that thing a "cat", then the sound means something. If someone then calls it a "car" they're wrong, and if they wish to communicate even remotely effectively, then they should learn the difference and repair their problem. And it will most definitely be their problem if they plan on living in human society with other people.
I'm not sure why we're going this far off from my initial, simple and trivial assertion that those who refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists are incorrect, as there is no such thing. They're hitting the wrong note, and the score has already been written in this case.
kropotkinbeard: Again, you spoke before knowing what you were doing. This is your problem as well.
"I don't see myself as having a problem here. You asserting otherwise is not going to change that."
Yes, I know. And just as the guy who keeps hitting the wrong note doesn't realize he is, this is your problem. ANd my asserting otherwise doesn't need to change the fact of what's happening, just as my asserting the fact that the guy hitting the wrong note doesn't have to or need to change his problem if he doesn't wish to. Now, how did you say humans could communicate if language is relative?
kropotkinbeard: None of the listeners had a problem at all [sic]. They simply recognized the violinists problem [sic]. They probably all pitched in to then try and get him extra lessons so as to assist when helping him to remove his problem [sic].
"I disagree. I see their annoyance as their problem. The violinist isn't responsible for that."
I think they know if they have a problem or not. They don't at all. The violinist is absolutely responsible for his making his mistake and hitting the wrong note. If he can't hit the correct note, it is no one else's problem but his. Here, let's try this. If I am a therapist, and someone comes to me with a problem, perhaps a problem that they're not even aware of, it is in no way, shape, or form 'my problem'. If they annoy me because they keep repeating the same crap over and over, yes, I will have to deal with it somehow, but that's not a problem unless it begins interfering with the therapy.
kropotkinbeard: Now, you've been working very hard at not responding to the most relevant arguments I've made [sic], one being that of our apparent ability to communicate without objectivity in language. You asserted earlier, most definitely before thinking it through[sic], that language was relative. Now, explain how communication takes place?
"We've already covered how communication takes place, I believe. (I think you missed a couple posts I made, namelythis one and this one.) You're simply dissatisfied (annoyed?) that I'm not acting in accordance with your expectations."
And, again, what would I have to be annoyed by? You don't have to act in accordance with anyone's expectations. You can call a "cat" a "car" all you want, and tell people who point out that there is a difference that they're annoyed because you aren't acting in accordance with their expectations. And this will still be your problem, not theirs. But if everything is relative, which, actually it probably is in a deeper sense, but nothing we've approached here, then it just wouldn't matter what sound you used for that furry thing, or anything else.
"You furthermore think this is my problem, as though your dissatisfaction somehow obligates me to act differently. Good luck with that."
You seem to be going off into what resembles what phony libertarians often do now, by projecting your own dissatisfaction onto me. I could care less if you act differently. I'm simply pointing out that you're hitting the wrong note, and it does matter to folks who care about the score, thoug it is your problem, not theirs.
"The hilarious thing, as I see it, is that you call yourself "anti-authoritarian", yet you're clearly trying to make me feel as though you have some sort of authority over me."
Yes, I am anti-authoritarian and I haven't even hinted in a sentence anything to the contrary. Pointing out that someone is making a mistake has nothing whatsoever to do with being an authoritarian. If I tell my son that his math problem of 2+2=5 is incorrect, I hardly think the charge of "authoritarian" would be the appropriate response. And if he did try and use this term, he would simply be oncorrect about that as well and then I've have to teach him the difference be education and "coercion". If you're concerned about what authoritarianism is, perhaps you should read a few of the writings of actual libertarians and anarchists. Mises and Rothbard aren't even in the ballpark. In fact, they're cheerleaders for nothing but authoritarianism.
kropotkinbeard,
I see that you do not give Autolykos the benefit of the doubt regarding classical music. You see, he was very clear about his statements, yet you seem to interpret them in a way he does not seem to mean. There have been many classical musicians who have delibrately changed the notes in a piece of music. Some notable examples of the top of my head: Fritz Kreisler, Jascha Heifetz, Emmanuel Feuermann, Pablo Casals, George Neikrug, Gaspar Cassado, Serge Koussevitzky, Max Hobart, Benjamin Zander, Jacqueline du Pre, Janos Starker, Leopold Stokowski, and Leopold Auer. Also, there are many original markings that musicians simply ignore. For example, very few people actually follow Beethoven's original tempi.
So, if someone were to listen to a recording of Jascha Heifetz (alas, he is dead, so there cannot be anymore Heifetz concerts), and maybe they were to listen to Heifetz play Tchaikovsky's violin concerto, they would notice that he actually added in some notes in order to make it more difficult and showy. Yet, it is still Tchaikovsky's violin concerto.
The point is, you had created straw man arguments about what Autolykos was saying. You really ought to be more careful in reading his posts, as he is usually quite delibrate with his choice of words.
I really hope you don't expect me to ever shrink down and back away from you on this, Kropotkinbeard - because I won't. Now then...
kropotkinbeard:Nope [I don't think being annoyed is a problem for me].
So you enjoy being annoyed? It brings you satisfaction?
kropotkinbeard:It might be if the source of the annoyance was myself and I couldn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
The source of the annoyance is always yourself. No one and nothing makes you feel a certain way but you.
kropotkinbeard:When someone else has a problem [sic], that's precisely what it is i.e.their problem [sic]. These could overlap in various way, but not really in anything mentioned thus far. If a guy is hitting a wrong note [sic] in the orchestra, and he can't fix it [sic], he has the problem [sic], regardless of the fact that his note makes others cringe [sic]. Basically, it's the same cringe response an actual libertarian/anarchist/communist [sic] has when hearing one referring to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalist [sic].
His note doesn't make others cringe. They make themselves cringe. And I couldn't care less just how much you make yourself cringe when you hear someone like me refer to himself as an "anarcho-capitalist". I, for one, will continue to call myself by that term as much and for as long as I want. In other words, I couldn't care less about your feelings on this issue.
kropotkinbeard:I have no problem.
Then apparently you enjoy being annoyed. I don't believe you here.
kropotkinbeard:I'll let you know when it's a problem for me.
As far as I'm concerned, you already have.
kropotkinbeard:His mistakes are his problem.
Once again, I wasn't referring to his actions per se. I was referring to your annoyance with them. As far as his actions go, if he wants to act differently (in this context, more consistently with certain standards/expectations), then I agree that that's his problem.
kropotkinbeard:But of course if I can help him repair his problem this would be a benefit mostly for him, and secondarily me, though this isn't really the important thing. I mean, assuming the 'virtue of selflessness' is properly in tact. And as I'm the conductor of the orchestra, yes, I don't expect his problem to bring down the quality of the overall sound of the orchestra. Therefore, as a mechanic doesn't get angry at an engine which isn't working well, especially if it's someone else's car, and does not have any problem at all (the car owner does), he simply goes about trying to help the owner with his problem.
Well this seems to contradict what you were saying earlier, which seemed to be that you're annoyed when one or more of your students keep acting contrary to your expectations.
kropotkinbeard:No, I would say that the students preventable mistake i.e.problem, made me annoyed, though it probably wouldn't even reach this point for a while.
My point was that you appeared to believe that your annoyance is actually caused by external phenomena, and you just confirmed this for me. Thanks. However, your annoyance actually comes from within.
kropotkinbeard:And if he kept making the same mistake for 5 more years, and I cringed every time he hit the wrong note [sic], it would still have nothing whatsoever to being a problem for me. He has a problem, similar to those whom mistakenly think of themselves as libertarians [sic], and yet believe that capitalism is not only acceptable, but a good thing. It is NOT my problem that they're making a mistake [sic]. Now, I can easily think up scenarios in which this could be the case. Just nothing being discussed here so far demands this.
So you enjoy cringing, then? Once again, I don't believe you.
kropotkinbeard:That's fine. There are many people with different points of view. Some folks believe the world is flat, which is a different point of view. They're wrong. Period. I mean, unless evidence to support thier [point] of view has emerged recently which would lead me to believe otherwise. I'm open for the evidence though.
I think you're making a category error here in comparing subjective phenomena, like definitions, to objective phenomena, like Earth's shape. In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. Let me ask you this: how can one perceive the meaning of a word wrongly?
kropotkinbeard:Yes, I know. As I said, this is, or may be, a problem for you. Alcoholics often don't believe they have drinking problems either.
I see this as an egregiously clear example of you trying to force your subjective opinions on me. Do you really expect to plant a seed of doubt in my head by insinuating that I'm just in denial about what you're talking about? I suggest you guess again.
kropotkinbeard:Well, why on earth would you think I or anyone else couldn't?
Because you're not me.
kropotkinbeard:If I, as a therapist and addiction specilist, know for a fact that a person drinks 3 liters of whiskey every day, and obviously has a drinking problem [sic], and yet they don't believe they do, you don't think it's possible that I might know better than them?
No. I think it's entirely up to him to decide whether he has a drinking problem.
kropotkinbeard:I don't mean to suggest that you're an alcoholic. Just as an example. Maybe. Also, would it really be my problem for simply recognizing that the person was an alcoholic, regardless if his drunken behavior was obnoxious and annoying from time to time. Not really a problem for me at all.
Being addicted to alcohol doesn't necessarily constitute a problem. It certainly doesn't constitute a problem in any objective sense. But no, recognizing that he's addicted to alcohol doesn't necessarily constitute a problem for you, and I never asserted otherwise.
kropotkinbeard:A guy running out of a building screaming "Apple! Apple!" is anyone else's problem? Really?
That's not what I said, is it? No. I said, "But if a person is annoyed by him screaming 'Apple! Apple!', that's that person's problem (as I see it) [emphasis added]." Are you deliberately overlooking that?
kropotkinbeard:Yes, that's what I said. And that his finger just can't sem to hit that note is his problem.
No, you didn't say that. You said (and I quote), "It's an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper [emphasis added]." That is, you asserted that the music itself, as written on the paper, imputed a certain expectation, if not a certain obligation, to the violinist.
kropotkinbeard:That's all I said. There was an objective way of reading the music. He either ignored it, or he simply can't do it. Both are probelms for him.
No, there's no objective way of reading the music. There may be a conventional way of reading it, but that's not the same as an objective way of reading it. I think I was a bit careless in what I wrote earlier. Let me amend it like so: if you're defining the term "playing correctly" as "playing the notes according to the convention you follow", then no, the violinist did not play correctly. There, I think that's much more accurate.
kropotkinbeard:If they're using written sheet music which demands a certain discipline and skill in hitting the correct notes, then, yes, they are bound to that.
So conventions exist outside of the mind? They necessarily exert physical forces on people? In that case, how was the violinist able to play the notes "incorrectly" at all?
kropotkinbeard:If they wish to just make up a bunch of atonal noises and demand that this is their freedom, then, yes, they can do that, too. It would still be their problem [sic], and they would not be playing correctly [sic]. You're getting back to your relativist position.
Of course I am. I've never abandoned it.
kropotkinbeard:There IS an agreed upon set of notations on the sheet music.
Agreed upon by who, exactly? Necessarily anyone and everyone? And must there be only one such convention?
kropotkinbeard:And you ARE going to have to hit those notes if you're going to be playing correctly [sic]. What you are NOT allowed to do [sic] is to hit whatever notes you want, and then try and claim that these notes are subjectively correct for me, and that it's the other folks problem of they don't accept my position. This is utter nonsense.
Apparently people are allowed to do that. I mean, when was the last time you heard of anyone employing coercion (physical force or the threat thereof) against a violinist because he played a "wrong" note? Otherwise, what do you mean by "allowed" above? Simply voicing your protest doesn't exert any necessary physical force on another person.
kropotkinbeard:Yeah, that definition is incorrect. There is ONE defintion.
Can you prove it?
kropotkinbeard:There are notes on a score, and they must be hit correctly [sic] if the [score] is to sound as the conductor wishes for it to. Folks have every right to become annoyed when someone's problem [sic] [keeps] recurring, especially if they see no reason why they should repair it [sic]. Persisting on playing the wrong note over and over doesn't make one a radical. It makes them incompetent [sic]. Again, they need help [sic]. [Emphasis added.]
If you're defining "playing music correctly" as "playing in a way that satisfies the conductor's wishes", that's fine. But that in no way means that everyone has no choice but to share the conductor's wishes in that regard. The presumption that most people nevertheless do is irrelevant. Furthermore, I think people are free to become annoyed at any time, but that in no way obviates my view that their annoyance is their problem. As I see it, whether something's a problem has nothing to do with whether it's justified.
kropotkinbeard:Actually, I don't believe most people usually decide to be or not to be annoyed, though with thorough meditation some annoyances can probably be reduced. I don't know what the theird sentence is referring to. I've already said that the folks who mistakenly refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists [sic] are probably not being dishonest because they aren't really aware that they're making the mistake. Were [they] fully aware [sic], and then just chose to use the term incorrectly [sic], well, that's a different problem they have which needs to be worked on [sic], and it does have to do with dishonesty [sic].
Do you think (most) people decide what expectations to have at any given point in time?
My third sentence was referring to your sleight-of-hand in apparently defining "incorrectness" as "failing to satisfy one or more other people's expectations", on the one hand, and then apparently equating that with "dishonesty" (defined as "acting contrary to the truth"), on the other. This is where I think you and those like you are trying to have your semantic cake and eat it too.
kropotkinbeard:Of course they don't have to. Again, they can choose to be wrong [sic]. And, again, this is a mistake they should fix [sic], unless they like making mistakes [sic]. They don't have to define "cat" the way I do either. And if they call the thing with wheels on it over there "cat", which they're free to do, then they're simply wrong [sic].
Some people might enjoy acting contrary to one or more other people's expectations - what you call "making mistakes". Or they may just not care, because they just don't care about those other people's expectations. But apparently that's not good enough for you. You apparently think that people are somehow harming you when they act contrary to your expectations, and this apparently gives you the right to force them to satisfy your expectations. The implication of this is that you believe that you're more important than they are.
kropotkinbeard:Of course one or more people expected this. In fact, everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. And were he to hit the wrong note [sic], then that his problem [sic], and he should [sic] do his best the next time to fix it [sic].
You're presuming that everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. That doesn't make it necessarily true. Just saying.
Furthermore, what are you or anyone else going to do if he doesn't "fix his problem" the next time?
kropotkinbeard:Well, actually, if people know the song, they know the notes which are to be played [sic] at what time, they know which notes are correct [sic] and which ones aren't, then, yes, there is a correctness to their expectation [sic] because they know what the correct note is [sic] and they expect it to be played. If they expect he may hit the wrong note [sic] because he looks nervous and this is his first performance, and he hits it, then they were correct [sic], and the only way for them to be correct [sic] is to be able to compare the correct note [sic] with the one they actually knew [sic] he was supposed to hit.
If you define "correctness" as "satisfying one or more other people's expectations", which is how you're apparently defining it in this context, then saying that someone's expectation is correct is the same as saying that his expectation satisfies one or more other people's expectations. But that seems to contradict your argument above. You seem to be giving the expectations of one group of people more weight than those of another group of people, and then presenting that subjective judgement as though it were a universal truth. Can you prove that the expectations of the one group are inherently weightier than those of the other group?
kropotkinbeard:Okay, then we should say that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the objectively correct [sic] note which he didn't. Either way, it's the guy who hit the wrong notes problem [sic], unless, he just doesn't care or something.
But if (once again) you're defining "correct" as "satisfying one or more other people's expectations", then what you're really saying is that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the note that would satisfy his subjective expectations. He's still not bound to have the expectations that he happens to have, nor does the fact that he has certain expectations obligate anyone else to satisfy them. Hence it's not anyone else's problem if they don't satisfy his expectations.
kropotkinbeard:Of course the notes don't. They're irrelevant in and of themselves. They're relevant in the sense that they've been [ordered] in a particular way in which a particular composer wants them arranged. Therefore, there ARE correct notes and incorrect notes [sic]. Same goes with language as I've been saying since the beginning. The sound or written word is meaningless unless we decide that it means something. So, when we decide to call that thing a "cat", then the sound means something. If someone then calls it a "car" they're wrong [sic], and if they wish to communicate even remotely effectively, then they should learn the difference and repair their problem [sic]. And it will most definitely be their problem [sic] if they plan on living in human society with other people.
Something I forgot to ask before: who exactly do you mean by "we"? This goes along with my point earlier about conventions not necessarily concerning everyone under the sun. Also, different conventions can exist in different contexts, right? Finally, what exactly do you think separates one "society" from another?
kropotkinbeard:I'm not sure why we're going this far off from my initial, simple and trivial assertion that those who refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists are incorrect [sic], as there is no such thing [sic]. They're hitting the wrong note [sic], and the score has already been written in this case [sic].
For one thing, who exactly do you think is the conductor of this score? Who exactly do you think is the audience?
For another, aren't other people free to write their own scores and perform them with their own conductors and for their own audiences?
kropotkinbeard:Yes, I know. And just as the guy who keeps hitting the wrong note [sic] doesn't realize he is [sic], this is your problem [sic]. ANd my asserting otherwise doesn't need to change the fact of what's happening [sic], just as my asserting the fact that the guy hitting the wrong note doesn't have to or need to change his problem if he doesn't wish to [sic]. Now, how did you say humans could communicate if language is relative?
Let's try this again. You saying something is my problem won't make me agree with you that it is my problem. You can continue to believe that it's my problem all you want, but it's not going to change anything I think or do, as I consider such a belief to be irrelevant to me. In other words, I simply don't care if you believe it's my problem. Do you understand?
What you're doing is demanding that I acquiesce to your semantics because... apparently because you say so. As I keep trying to point out and make clear, I'm under no obligation to do that. That is, I don't consider myself to be under any such obligation.
I've already explained how I said humans could communicate if language is relative. Please check out this post and this post. You seem to be ignoring them for some reason.
kropotkinbeard:I think they know if they have a problem or not. They don't at all [sic]. The violinist is absolutely responsible for his making his mistake [sic] and hitting the wrong note [sic]. If he can't hit the correct note [sic], it is no one else's problem but his [sic]. Here, let's try this. If I am a therapist, and someone comes to me with a problem, perhaps a problem that they're not even aware of, it is in no way, shape, or form 'my problem'. If they annoy me because they keep repeating the same crap over and over, yes, I will have to deal with it somehow, but that's not a problem unless it begins interfering with the therapy [sic].
No one performed the violinist's actions but himself - I completely agree with that. However, what you're saying seems to imply that the violinist deserves some kind of penalty simply if he fails to satisfy certain expectations of certain other people. Is that accurate? If so, what kind of penalty do you think he deserves, and why? If not, what are you actually implying here?
kropotkinbeard:And, again, what would I have to be annoyed by? You don't have to act in accordance with anyone's expectations. You can call a "cat" a "car" all you want, and tell people who point out that there is a difference that they're annoyed because you aren't acting in accordance with their expectations [sic]. And this will still be your problem, not theirs [sic]. But if everything is relative, which, actually it probably is in a deeper sense, but nothing we've approached here, then it just wouldn't matter what sound you used for that furry thing, or anything else [sic].
I'd really like to know what you mean by "it just wouldn't matter". I fail to see how saying that meaning is relative equates to saying that meaning does not and cannot exist in any way whatsoever - which seems to be what you're implying. But I think you're annoyed because I'm not going along with what you're saying. I think the phrasing you're using betrays this annoyance, such as using the word "period" after making a factual claim, as though you won't allow any questioning of the claim. To that I say, too bad, I'll question it all I want. You can't stop me.
kropotkinbeard:You seem to be going off into what resembles what phony libertarians often do now, by projecting your own dissatisfaction onto me. I could care less if you act differently. I'm simply pointing out that you're hitting the wrong note [sic], and it does matter to folks who care about the score [sic], thoug it is your problem, not theirs [sic].
First off, I'm simply trying to refute the claims you're making. Just what dissatisfaction do you think I'm projecting onto you, exactly? This sounds like the old "I know you are, but what am I?" canard, to be honest.
Second, just because other people don't like how I'm using a certain word doesn't mean I have to care about that. And if I don't care about it, and I don't think I have any problem there, then what difference do you expect it to make to me? I think you're annoyed (if not pissed off now) that your efforts to get me and other anarcho-capitalists to change their semantics have been entirely in vain up to this point. That's why I think you're continuing to respond the way you are, even after I explained to you that your efforts there would in all likelihood not succeed.
kropotkinbeard:Yes, I am anti-authoritarian and I haven't even hinted in a sentence anything to the contrary [sic]. Pointing out that someone is making a mistake [sic] has nothing whatsoever to do with being an authoritarian. If I tell my son that his math problem of 2+2=5 is incorrect, I hardly think the charge of "authoritarian" would be the appropriate response. And if he did try and use this term, he would simply be [incorrect] about that as well and then I've have to teach him the difference be education and "coercion". If you're concerned about what authoritarianism is, perhaps you should read a few of the writings of actual libertarians and anarchists [sic]. Mises and Rothbard aren't even in the ballpark. In fact, they're cheerleaders for nothing but authoritarianism [sic].
I'm not even sure what you and other left-anarchists mean by the term "authority" (along with the term "hierarchy"). I asked you before to provide your definitions for those terms, and you ignored it. But it seems clear to me that you're trying to appear to me to be more powerful than me, with the implication that I'm obligated to acquiesce to those who at least appear to be more powerful than me. That's why I accuse you of acting in an authoritarian manner despite calling yourself an anti-authoritarian.
Also, let me ask you this: if your son told you that he didn't care whether you thought he was making a mistake, what would you do then? Would you let him go on his merry way? Or would you start threatening (if not using) force against him unless he acted in conformance with your expectations of him?
John Doe:
Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom. Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty. This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier.
Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state. There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero. And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried. Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that. Has nothing to do with a hierarchy of any sort. Or if it does it's not hierarchical for any power reasons. If the people of the society decide to build bridge over the river, well, I'm not going to insist that they allow me to do it because I know nothing about building bridges. We would simply find who was capable of doing it, and putting them in charge of doing it. He may give orders to others, but this is part of the deal if we want the bridge. However, allowing him the authority to be in charge of the building of the bridge doesn't in any way, shape or form give him any special privilege, or hierarchical status. So, if a company consists of free people, who have not been compelled to work there under the threat of starvation, and who will receive the benefits of whatever their labor has produced, without anyone taking any profit from his labor(stealing) i.e.capitalist, and would lend itself toward equality, would allow all the folks working at the company to have an input into what they think should happen with the company, and there are some other things, then, yes, I guess it might be able to be done. Renting oneself out for someone else to profit off of i.e.wage slavery, and never been accepted by defenders of freedom and liberty. This is why so much effort has been put into simply trying to adjust what people perceive as being something other than what it is i.e.a hierarchical relationship, which most any elementary child would immediately recognize as hierarchical. Takes lots of work and a little sophistry to try andargue that something is not really slavery if the slave "volunteers" to be a slave. Libertarians do not wish to have slaves, nor be slaves. Capitalism is simply not compatable with this unless the meanings of words are changed.
kropotkinbeard: John Doe:"Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?"Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.
John Doe:"Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?"
kropotkinbeard:Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty.
kropotkinbeard:This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.
Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.
kropotkinbeard:There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero.
kropotkinbeard:And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried.
kropotkinbeard:Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that.
kropotkinbeard:Has nothing to do with a hierarchy of any sort. Or if it does it's not hierarchical for any power reasons. If the people of the society decide to build bridge over the river, well, I'm not going to insist that they allow me to do it because I know nothing about building bridges. We would simply find who was capable of doing it, and putting them in charge of doing it. He may give orders to others, but this is part of the deal if we want the bridge. However, allowing him the authority to be in charge of the building of the bridge doesn't in any way, shape or form give him any special privilege, or hierarchical status.
kropotkinbeard:So, if a company consists of free people, who have not been compelled to work there under the threat of starvation, and who will receive the benefits of whatever their labor has produced, without anyone taking any profit from his labor(stealing) i.e.capitalist,
kropotkinbeard:and would lend itself toward equality, would allow all the folks working at the company to have an input into what they think should happen with the company,
kropotkinbeard:and there are some other things, then, yes, I guess it might be able to be done. Renting oneself out for someone else to profit off of i.e.wage slavery, and never been accepted by defenders of freedom and liberty. This is why so much effort has been put into simply trying to adjust what people perceive as being something other than what it is i.e.a hierarchical relationship, which most any elementary child would immediately recognize as hierarchical. Takes lots of work and a little sophistry to try andargue that something is not really slavery if the slave "volunteers" to be a slave. Libertarians do not wish to have slaves, nor be slaves. Capitalism is simply not compatable with this unless the meanings of words are changed.
"I really hope you don't expect me to ever shrink down and back away from you on this, Kropotkinbeard - because I won't. Now then..."
Impressive. I wouldn't expect any less.
kropotkinbeard: Nope [I don't think being annoyed is a problem for me].
"So you enjoy being annoyed? It brings you satisfaction?"
Not at all. It's simply not my problem.
kropotkinbeard: It might be if the source of the annoyance was myself and I couldn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
"The source of the annoyance is always yourself. No one and nothing makes you feel a certain way but you."
Actually, no, were the fellow not hitting the wrong note over and over i.e.the source of the annoyance, then there would be none. Fixing his problem might alleviate the annoyance it is causing though.
kropotkinbeard: When someone else has a problem [sic], that's precisely what it is i.e.their problem [sic]. These could overlap in various way, but not really in anything mentioned thus far. If a guy is hitting a wrong note [sic] in the orchestra, and he can't fix it [sic], he has the problem [sic], regardless of the fact that his note makes others cringe [sic]. Basically, it's the same cringe response an actual libertarian/anarchist/communist [sic] has when hearing one referring to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalist [sic].
"His note doesn't make others cringe. They make themselves cringe."
You are getting desparate now. You are going to try and argue that when he hits the wrong note that they decide to cringe? Not in any way, shape or form. Just as a knife being stuck into one's ribs causes him to cringe, the wrong note causes the people to cringe. And in neither case did the recipient of the pain 'cause' anything at all, nor even choose for that matter. Are you sure that "shrinking down" isn't an option for you?
"And I couldn't care less just how much you make yourself cringe when you hear someone like me refer to himself as an "anarcho-capitalist""
I'm sure you couldn't, nor would I expect you to. This is irrelevant and is your problem which you'll have to deal with. That the fellow mistakenly uses a term is his problem, not mine. All I can do is point it out to him and then he, like an adult, will have to decide whether he wishes to keep making the same mistake over and over, and live with ll the embarrassment and humiliation that this will cause, or learn something and move forward. I can't make anyone play the correct note. They have to do it. And it's their problem until they do.
"I, for one, will continue to call myself by that term as much and for as long as I want. In other words, I couldn't care less about your feelings on this issue."
Haha. How manly. You are starting to sound like the whining libertarians who flock to Stefan Molyneux's comedy site on youtube. "I can do what I want! You can't make me! Coercion! Coercion! Taxes are theft! Voting is aggression!" and all the rest of the childish nonsense. If you couldn't care less, then why do you keep returning? Just drop it and go back to doing something else. You care or you wouldn't be here. Also, you are projecting again. Also, are you going to actually claim to be an "anarcho"-capitalist yourself?
kropotkinbeard: I have no problem.
"Then apparently you enjoy being annoyed. I don't believe you here."
I don't have to "enjoy being annoyed" in order not to have a problem with it. This is you. You're projecting again. The fellow hits the wrong note, he hits the wrong note. I cringe because of 'his mistake', which is his problem. Were he to simply learn to hit the correct note, and, yes, there really is a correct note, then not only will he have grown and erased his mistake, he would have spared me the non-voluntary reaction of annoyance when hearing him make his mistake. It's a win-win.
kropotkinbeard: I'll let you know when it's a problem for me.
"As far as I'm concerned, you already have."
Yeah, and this is your problem. You need to examine your "concern" a little better.
kropotkinbeard: His mistakes are his problem.
"Once again, I wasn't referring to his actions per se. I was referring to your annoyance with them."
My annoyance is irrelevant.
"As far as his actions go, if he wants to act differently (in this context, more consistently with certain standards/expectations), then I agree that that's his problem."
Great! Then you have finally agreed to what I've been saying since the beginning. See? Advances can be made due to the non-relativity of language.
kropotkinbeard: But of course if I can help him repair his problem this would be a benefit mostly for him, and secondarily me, though this isn't really the important thing. I mean, assuming the 'virtue of selflessness' is properly in tact. And as I'm the conductor of the orchestra, yes, I don't expect his problem to bring down the quality of the overall sound of the orchestra. Therefore, as a mechanic doesn't get angry at an engine which isn't working well, especially if it's someone else's car, and does not have any problem at all (the car owner does), he simply goes about trying to help the owner with his problem.
"Well this seems to contradict what you were saying earlier, which seemed to be that you're annoyed when one or more of your students keep acting contrary to your expectations."
No, this contradicts nothing I've said earlier. And I have few expectations of students other than they try, and this trying entails trying not to make the same mistakes over and over, which is their problem, not mine. If I get annoyed it has nothing to do with being a problem.
kropotkinbeard: No, I would say that the students preventable mistake i.e.problem, made me annoyed, though it probably wouldn't even reach this point for a while.
"My point was that you appeared to believe that your annoyance is actually caused by external phenomena, and you just confirmed this for me. Thanks. However, your annoyance actually comes from within."
If I'm sitting in a room listening to a given tune, and all the notes are correctly hit, then there is no annoyance which arises because nothing has triggered it. If someone hits a note they shouldn't have i.e.made a mistake i.e.their problem, then I may become annoyed precisely for their having hit the note. No externally triggered wrong note hitting my eardrum, no reaction of annoyance. One does NOT choose to become annoyed. "Oh, listen to that dog barking next door. I think I'll become annoyed." But if this is the way you respond I'd most definitely be interested in hearing more about it.
kropotkinbeard: And if he kept making the same mistake for 5 more years, and I cringed every time he hit the wrong note [sic], it would still have nothing whatsoever to being a problem for me. He has a problem, similar to those whom mistakenly think of themselves as libertarians [sic], and yet believe that capitalism is not only acceptable, but a good thing. It is NOT my problem that they're making a mistake [sic]. Now, I can easily think up scenarios in which this could be the case. Just nothing being discussed here so far demands this.
"So you enjoy cringing, then? Once again, I don't believe you."
That's because you're claiming that I'm doing something I'm not. You are projecting what you would do onto me. I don't enjoy cringing at all. Actually, it's not really and enjoyment type of response. It's simply a reaction to hearing someone having made a mistake in one part of the song. And when someone sticks a knife into my ribs, and I cringe, I don't enjoy doing it. It just happens as a matter of the external paid which was introduced. I don't choose to cringe in either situation. But you do? A knife goes into your ribs and your first response is "Wait! Should I cringe because of that horrible pain in my side, or should I laugh, or start singing. Hmmm....Well, it's up to me. And because I'm a "libertarian" I am free to choose. No one can "coerce" me to do anything! So, I think I'll sing." I mean, to bring your position to its obvious logical conclusion.
kropotkinbeard: That's fine. There are many people with different points of view. Some folks believe the world is flat, which is a different point of view. They're wrong. Period. I mean, unless evidence to support thier [point] of view has emerged recently which would lead me to believe otherwise. I'm open for the evidence though.
"I think you're making a category error here in comparing subjective phenomena, like definitions, to objective phenomena, like Earth's shape."
It's possible. And, yes, I'm aware of categorical errors and the charges of making them.
"In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. Let me ask you this: how can one perceive the meaning of a word wrongly?"
There is an object which is small and furry, four legs, purrs, etc...It has been given the label "cat". A person sees the word "cat", and when it enters their mind a vision of what others would refer to as an elephant appears. The word "cat" has a meaning. He has perceived it incorrectly. Similarly, a person hears the word "libertarian", an image of pro-capitalism pops into his head, well, he's perceived the word wrongly.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, I know. As I said, this is, or may be, a problem for you. Alcoholics often don't believe they have drinking problems either.
"I see this as an egregiously clear example of you trying to force your subjective opinions on me."
Then you see incorrectly This would be wour problem. But just to allow you the opportunity, what "subjective opinion" do you think you see which I'm trying to force upon you? I mean, I know that propertarians often have this paranoia of "force" and "coercion" everywhere they look, but I'll assume, for now anyway, that you're not one of them. So, again, I have no idea what you're talking about with this assertion. If you're referring to my statements regarding the fact that a libertarian/anarchist cannot be a capitalist, well, this has nothing to do with either my "opinion" or "subjectivity". This is simply a fact. You can accept the fact, or you can deny it. Up to you.
"Do you really expect to plant a seed of doubt in my head by insinuating that I'm just in denial about what you're talking about? I suggest you guess again."
Firstly, you'll have to be a little more specific about what you're talking about here. I didn't insinuate that you were in denial about what I was talking about. I insinuated that you didn't understand what I was talking about, which is something quite different. If you are referring to the notion of what a libertarian is, then, you are either in denial, or you're simply misinformed. In denial would probably entail that you at least knew on some level that you were bing less than honest. Being misinformed is simply not knowing something. You're going to have to be clearer about what you're referring to here. The musician? The phony libertarians?
kropotkinbeard: Well, why on earth would you think I or anyone else couldn't?
"Because you're not me."
If you're going to parse, copy and paste, it would help to have the entire context, or at least enough of it to know what you're referring to. I have no idea what this refers to, and I don't wish to look back to find out.
kropotkinbeard: If I, as a therapist and addiction specilist, know for a fact that a person drinks 3 liters of whiskey every day, and obviously has a drinking problem [sic], and yet they don't believe they do, you don't think it's possible that I might know better than them?
"No. I think it's entirely up to him to decide whether he has a drinking problem."
Then, sir, you know nothing about psychology, which is common among propertarians, and the right in general. If he's in denial, he doesn't realize he has the problem. That's what the term denial means. He doesn't "decide" anything as he's too impared to decide. He will die unless someone steps in a decides for him, which is the humane thing to do whenever one sees another committing suicide. And while I appreciate your attempts at trying really hard to force some vague notion of "individualism" which doesn't exist, it does lead to some rather silly conclusions.
kropotkinbeard: I don't mean to suggest that you're an alcoholic. Just as an example. Maybe. Also, would it really be my problem for simply recognizing that the person was an alcoholic, regardless if his drunken behavior was obnoxious and annoying from time to time. Not really a problem for me at all.
"Being addicted to alcohol doesn't necessarily constitute a problem."
Uhh...Okay. Whatever. Want to talk about fishing?
"It certainly doesn't constitute a problem in any objective sense."
No, only other than it can kill someone. But since death is probably subjective I guess this isn't a problem.
"But no, recognizing that he's addicted to alcohol doesn't necessarily constitute a problem for you, and I never asserted otherwise."
Of course it doesn't constitute a problem for me. And, yes, you did assert otherwise, though using a different scenario. But just to potentially contradict myself, the effects of his alcoholism could become a problem for me in the sense that if it causes him to become violent, steals, etc...it might be a problem for me.
kropotkinbeard: A guy running out of a building screaming "Apple! Apple!" is anyone else's problem? Really?
"That's not what I said, is it? No. I said, "But if a person is annoyed by him screaming 'Apple! Apple!', that's that person's problem (as I see it) [emphasis added]." Are you deliberately overlooking that?"
I deliberately did nothing, so quit trying to find fault where there is none. It's childish. And you're still incorrect. Their becoming annoyed isn't their problem. Has nothing to do with a problem.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, that's what I said. And that his finger just can't sem to hit that note is his problem.
"No, you didn't say that. You said (and I quote), "It's an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper [emphasis added]." That is, you asserted that the music itself, as written on the paper, imputed a certain expectation, if not a certain obligation, to the violinist."
It would really behoove you to quite trying to play philosopher. It's not working. I asserted nothing of the sort. Music doesn't imput expectations, nor have I even hinted at such, nor would I. It's quite simple. There exists a note on the paper. The note means something. It means put your fingers on the correct places in order to get the correct sound to emerge. If the viloinist does not do this, he has hit the wrong note, which is his problem. The music has no expectations. The people who know what it's supposed to sound like do. The music is irrelevant, just as the sounds coming out of your mouth are, unless they've been designated certain meanings. Then, they mean something. This is what meaning means. This is why you can understand, maybe, what you're reading right now. You know, that obvious and trivial fact I keep repeating and you keep ignoring? I mean, after your "language is relative" statement, well, the hole can only become deeper.
kropotkinbeard: That's all I said. There was an objective way of reading the music. He either ignored it, or he simply can't do it. Both are probelms for him.
"No, there's no objective way of reading the music."
Great! Just many little subjective ways. That's fine. There is no objective way at the level of 2+2=4, but this has nothing to do with the real world, so it doesn't really matter. I'm talking about the real world.
"There may be a conventional way of reading it, but that's not the same as an objective way of reading it."
They both support my position.
"I think I was a bit careless in what I wrote earlier. Let me amend it like so: if you're defining the term "playing correctly" as "playing the notes according to the convention you follow", then no, the violinist did not play correctly. There, I think that's much more accurate."
Yes, I would agree with that.
kropotkinbeard: If they're using written sheet music which demands a certain discipline and skill in hitting the correct notes, then, yes, they are bound to that.
"So conventions exist outside of the mind? They necessarily exert physical forces on people? In that case, how was the violinist able to play the notes "incorrectly" at all?"
No, I wouldn't say that conventions necessarily exist outside the mind because it takes people to even be able to refer or see something as a convention. That being said, if a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound whether or not anyone is there to hear it. There is only such thing as an "incorrect note" if it has been agreed upon that a certain tune has certain notes played in certain places. A note is simply a sound, just as are the utterances which emerge from peoples mouths. The sounds themselves mean nothing until people decide that they do. If he is just hitting random notes, then he is not making a mistake. In fact, he can call it progressive jazz or soething if he wishes. Certain types of music lend themselves to NOT follwing conventional rules. In fact, I have made such music for years. I have also played "conventional" music.
kropotkinbeard: If they wish to just make up a bunch of atonal noises and demand that this is their freedom, then, yes, they can do that, too. It would still be their problem [sic], and they would not be playing correctly [sic]. You're getting back to your relativist position.
"Of course I am. I've never abandoned it."
Okay, just wanting to make sure. Funny thing is that I find myself arguing relativist positions much of the time, especially against those who seem to think they have 'the truth' i.e.Plato, etc...I'm aware of the various shades between, but I do have a tendency to cringe whenever I hear someone positing something which sounds absolute. I mean, everything but what I'm saying now. haha
kropotkinbeard: There IS an agreed upon set of notations on the sheet music.
"Agreed upon by who, exactly? Necessarily anyone and everyone? And must there be only one such convention?"
Good question. AGreed upon usually by the folks who took the time to start writing down the sounds on paper. Then when folks agreed upon reading the notes that way it become conventional. Then there are composers like Harry Partch who rejected this standardized form as too limiting. He made his own instruments, wrote his own music, and had to teach musicians to read the music and play the instruments. Personally, I think this is great. However, I do distinguish between this (music) and definitions of words. As I mentioned earlier, one can just make up their own language if they wish, but it will not really perform any function unless others learn it. It therefore seems pointless. Music is different. I'll get into that if you wish, but it may open another bag of worms. And, no, with music I'd say there shouldn't be such convention. Some folks in the music industry might disagree with me as they profit off precisely encouraging convention, but I'm not too fond of this.
kropotkinbeard: And you ARE going to have to hit those notes if you're going to be playing correctly [sic]. What you are NOT allowed to do [sic] is to hit whatever notes you want, and then try and claim that these notes are subjectively correct for me, and that it's the other folks problem of they don't accept my position. This is utter nonsense.
"Apparently people are allowed to do that."
No, you are not allowed to do that at all if we are speaking of, say, calssical music. You'll be kicked out of the orchestra. In other types of music is it not only acceptable, it is encouraged.
"I mean, when was the last time you heard of anyone employing coercion (physical force or the threat thereof) against a violinist because he played a "wrong" note?"
(Here we go with the "coercion" nonsense...) The last time was probably when the last violinist to hit a wrong note, repeatedly, was booted from the orchestra, though this has nothing to do with "coercion". He freely joined the band. He freely stays there. He freely follows the agreed upon rules, or he freely gets booted. This generalizes to civil society as well. You know, democracy, which entails freedom?
"Otherwise, what do you mean by "allowed" above?"
If the conductor doesn't care if he hits whatever wrong notes he wishes, then he has been allowed to do it. Just as if a person in a free and democratic society decides to allow its citizens to drive 30 mph or 300 mph through the neighborhoods.
"Simply voicing your protest doesn't exert any necessary physical force on another person."
Never said it did, nor would I. That being said, voicing a protest cn most definitely be considered force in other ways e.g.psychological, etc...
kropotkinbeard: Yeah, that definition is incorrect. There is ONE defintion.
"Can you prove it?"
Yeah. Sort of like I can prove that Noam Chomsky has never said an "anti-American" word in any of his writings. You simply look and see that they're not there. WIth the notes (if this is still what you're talking about) there is one correct definition. If that little black spot on that line means C# then that's what it is. If you ask 3 million people and they all say that is C#, then that's what it is.
kropotkinbeard: There are notes on a score, and they must be hit correctly [sic] if the [score] is to sound as the conductor wishes for it to. Folks have every right to become annoyed when someone's problem [sic] [keeps] recurring, especially if they see no reason why they should repair it [sic]. Persisting on playing the wrong note over and over doesn't make one a radical. It makes them incompetent [sic]. Again, they need help [sic]. [Emphasis added.]
"If you're defining "playing music correctly" as "playing in a way that satisfies the conductor's wishes", that's fine."
The conductor and anyone else who expects to hear certain notes in certain places.
"But that in no way means that everyone has no choice but to share the conductor's wishes in that regard."
Never even hinted that it did. There could be some people for some reason who liked the wrong notes. There are probably some people who think it would be cool for the orchestra to hit all the notes incorrectly. They could kick back and wallow in the chaos. I probably have some friends who might do this. And I've even been accused of doing it from time to time, though I don' consider King Crimson as chaos, regardless that there are parts of their tunes which are supposed to be something similar.
"The presumption that most people nevertheless do is irrelevant."
Yes. This doesn't conflict with anything I've said.
"Furthermore, I think people are free to become annoyed at any time"
Of course. Given that they have little or no control over it it would probably be okay for them to do it. Sort of like people are free to be happy at anytime. Why the introduction of "freedom", as if I've even hinted at anything which was against it? I haven't uttered a single sentence or ideas which even hinted at anything resembling not being a proponent of freedom.
"...but that in no way obviates my view that their annoyance is their problem. As I see it, whether something's a problem has nothing to do with whether it's justified."
They do have to deal with the annoyance somehow. Perhaps you can give me a thought experiment to express this position. I'm not exactly sure how you are meaning something here.
kropotkinbeard: Actually, I don't believe most people usually decide to be or not to be annoyed, though with thorough meditation some annoyances can probably be reduced. I don't know what the theird sentence is referring to. I've already said that the folks who mistakenly refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists [sic] are probably not being dishonest because they aren't really aware that they're making the mistake. Were [they] fully aware [sic], and then just chose to use the term incorrectly [sic], well, that's a different problem they have which needs to be worked on [sic], and it does have to do with dishonesty [sic].
"Do you think (most) people decide what expectations to have at any given point in time?"
Of course I do. If I go to a concert by a band that I think are great then I expect to hear the band play great. They may or may not live up to my expectations, but not to have expectations would be rather odd. In other situations not having an expectation would be perfectly normal. If I go into a job interview, and it seems to go rather well, though I know that 5,000 other folks have applied for the same position, well, I'd probably not expect too much as the probability is not exactl great. Depends on situation.
"My third sentence was referring to your sleight-of-hand in apparently defining "incorrectness" as "failing to satisfy one or more other people's expectations", on the one hand, and then apparently equating that with "dishonesty" (defined as "acting contrary to the truth"), on the other. This is where I think you and those like you are trying to have your semantic cake and eat it too."
I wasn't aware that I used a "slight-of-hand". This sounds almost like I was trying to dishonestly pull something off. I can assure you that this has not been the case. If I did it, it was unconsciously, and I will need to examine this. Perhaps you can help. You'll have to try this one again. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please clarify.
kropotkinbeard: Of course they don't have to. Again, they can choose to be wrong [sic]. And, again, this is a mistake they should fix [sic], unless they like making mistakes [sic]. They don't have to define "cat" the way I do either. And if they call the thing with wheels on it over there "cat", which they're free to do, then they're simply wrong [sic].
"Some people might enjoy acting contrary to one or more other people's expectations - what you call "making mistakes"."
Yes, I'm aware that there are people like this. Calling "cats" cars just to be contrary, might get them off in some sort of childish way. And, again, you must not have understood what I've written. Consciously choosing to be contrarian and making a mistake aren't the same. So, your chagre here is incorrect.
"Or they may just not care, because they just don't care about those other people's expectations."
Perhaps. Then they're probably pathological. Many phony libertarians would fall into this category. Perhaps too much reading of Rand caused the disorder. I mean, if there was one person walking around spewing their vile ignorance it was it was probably her.
"But apparently that's not good enough for you."
Haha...Someone consciously acting like a third grader isn't good enough for me? Again, their acting like a third grader is not my problem, it's their's.
"You apparently think that people are somehow harming you when they act contrary to your expectations"
Wrong again. This is your "libertarian" paranoia and fear that everything out there is trying to "get you", "coerce you", and "steal your money". I'm more of a realist.
"and this apparently gives you the right to force them to satisfy your expectations."
How many times are you going to say "force". I haven't even hinted at "force" anything. But then again I'm more of a democratically-minded thinker and force is rarely used.
"The implication of this is that you believe that you're more important than they are."
You're projecting again. And their having a problem and making mistakes, especially if they do so repeatedly, well, speaks for itself. If a rational person sees what's taking place they can decide for themselves if consciously calling a "cat" a "car" makes me "more important" than they are. Doesn't have much to do with "importance" at all that I can tell. SImply has to do with one person being rational and another one not. Also, these statements are reeking a little bit of a common feature of much of right-wing blog babble, and that is that they start making similar chrages when cornered. Be careful. After all, we "lefties" are out to get you!
kropotkinbeard: Of course one or more people expected this. In fact, everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. And were he to hit the wrong note [sic], then that his problem [sic], and he should [sic] do his best the next time to fix it [sic].
"You're presuming that everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. That doesn't make it necessarily true. Just saying.
Yes, you're correct. I am. And, no, it may not make it necesarily true. There could possibly be some other deviant contrarian out there hoping that he wouldn't hit the correct note. Many sick people in the world. I'm also presuming that everyone there thought he would have a head, but that doesn't make it true either. Just an educated hunch I guess.
"Furthermore, what are you or anyone else going to do if he doesn't "fix his problem" the next time?"
Well, if he doesn't I will probably just not go see him any more. The conductor may kick him out of the orchestra. He may then be required to sell himself into wage slavery so that he can get enough money to buy some Mises' books and de-intellectualize himself. I don't know. Something.
kropotkinbeard: Well, actually, if people know the song, they know the notes which are to be played [sic] at what time, they know which notes are correct [sic] and which ones aren't, then, yes, there is a correctness to their expectation [sic] because they know what the correct note is [sic] and they expect it to be played. If they expect he may hit the wrong note [sic] because he looks nervous and this is his first performance, and he hits it, then they were correct [sic], and the only way for them to be correct [sic] is to be able to compare the correct note [sic] with the one they actually knew [sic] he was supposed to hit.
"If you define "correctness" as "satisfying one or more other people's expectations", which is how you're apparently defining it in this context, then saying that someone's expectation is correct is the same as saying that his expectation satisfies one or more other people's expectations."
Perhaps.
"But that seems to contradict your argument above. You seem to be giving the expectations of one group of people more weight than those of another group of people, and then presenting that subjective judgement as though it were a universal truth."
No, in THAT situation, where there IS a score of music which is written a particular way, and which the musicians are to be playing as it is written, there would naturally be expectations which will either be satisfied by the people playing the correct notes or not. Which other group?
"Can you prove that the expectations of thehen itroup are inherently weightier than those of the other group?"
I'm not sure "other group" you are talking about now.
kropotkinbeard: Okay, then we should say that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the objectively correct [sic] note which he didn't. Either way, it's the guy who hit the wrong notes problem [sic], unless, he just doesn't care or something.
"But if (once again) you're defining "correct" as "satisfying one or more other people's expectations""
No, there IS a correct and incorrect note to hit. Period. He hits it or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he's made a mistake. This in one thing. Doesn't matter if anyone else is there to hear it. If a note plays in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Answer: Of course.
"then what you're really saying is that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the note that would satisfy his subjective expectations."
If you wish. Or, given that there is A single correct note, which everyone counts on, it could be objective. But just a bunch of little subjectivities in agreement would be fine.
"He's still not bound to have the expectations that he happens to have"
Which "he" do you keep referring to, the musician or the people in the audience? If he wishes to stay in the orcestra, yes, he is bound to what he's been assigned to do. If he wishes to demonstrate that he's free, then the conductor will probably more than happy to assist him in his quest for freedom by booting him out of the concert hall.
"nor does the fact that he has certain expectations obligate anyone else to satisfy them. Hence it's not anyone else's problem if they don't satisfy his expectations."
I have no idea what you're talking about now. Try again. Who is "they" and "his"?
kropotkinbeard: Of course the notes don't. They're irrelevant in and of themselves. They're relevant in the sense that they've been [ordered] in a particular way in which a particular composer wants them arranged. Therefore, there ARE correct notes and incorrect notes[sic]. Same goes with language as I've been saying since the beginning. The sound or written word is meaningless unless wedecide that it means something. So, when we decide to call that thing a "cat", then the sound means something. If someone then calls it a "car" they're wrong [sic], and if they wish to communicate even remotely effectively, then they should learn the difference and repair their problem [sic]. And it will most definitely be their problem [sic] if they plan on living in human society with other people.
"Something I forgot to ask before: who exactly do you mean by "we"?"
Haha...This sounds familiar. If you're referring to the quote above, "we" obviously means people. "..unless 'we' decide it means something", means people. So, the sound of the word 'cat' means something, and it's different that what is meant when one says'car'. People decide all of these things. Same goes with the notion of "rights", or "natural rights". There are no such things. People decide what they are and then implement them. Same as words and their meanings. Quite similar, in fact.
"This goes along with my point earlier about conventions not necessarily concerning everyone under the sun. Also, different conventions can exist in different contexts, right? Finally, what exactly do you think separates one "society" from another?"
I haven't said a word about anything having to be conventional to everyone under the sun. If we're talking about music or a certain sort, calssical in this case as I thought was obvious, then, yes, there are certain conventions, and if people are going to play the music called classical they're going to have to abide by the conventions, or they simply won't be playing classical music. They can call it something else if they wish. No problem. What they can't do is call what they're doing country music. I mean, of course they can, but they're simply wrong, unless the vast majority of folks who use the term in it's conventional use decide to change it. It's logically possible, but highly unlikely. Similarly, folks referring to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists should refrain from calling themselves this as it's the same as were an orchestra to call what they're doing country music or rap. The orchestra is NOT playing country or rap, and this is not simply an opinion.
kropotkinbeard: I'm not sure why we're going this far off from my initial, simple and trivial assertion that those who refer to themselves as "anarcho"-capitalists are incorrect [sic], as there is no such thing [sic]. They're hitting the wrong note [sic], and the score has already been written in this case [sic].
"For one thing, who exactly do you think is the conductor of this score? Who exactly do you think is the audience?"
In this case the folks who initially called themselves libertarian anarchists, communists, socialists, and other anti-capitalists. That's who. Regarding who the audience is, well, there are those libertarian who are well aware that what I'm saying is as uncontroversial as my saying that the furry thing is a cat and not a jeep. That's enough. Then are those who haven't a clue as to whom the conductors were e.g.Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotking, Malatesta, and on and on.....mushc less that what they're playing is not only not classical, which they believe it is, it's more along the lines of really bad heavy metal. Not only that, it gets worse. As many of these folks are so indoctrinated, it actually borders on religious belief, it's actually much easier to take anyone off the street whose even moderately open-minded and simply show them the data, and without knowing anything about the suject, could within a very short time confirm that what I'm asserting is correct. I'd be happy just to have a simply "anarcho"-capitalist to read a single book by a real libertarian. I've been trying for years and have found none yet. In fact, it's proetty much like my looking for a Chomsky ciritic who has read a single book. I've met less than 5 in 20 years. ANd this includes Horowitz, Kamm, and other illiterate liars.
"For another, aren't other people free to write their own scores and perform them with their own conductors and for their own audiences?"
Of course people are free to write their own scores, and perform with their own conductors, and if the wish have ther own audiences. Then they could all sit around thinking what they were playing was rap when it was classical. I mean, if that's where you were going with it.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, I know. And just as the guy who keeps hitting the wrong note [sic] doesn't realize he is [sic], this is your problem [sic]. ANd my asserting otherwise doesn't need to change the fact of what's happening [sic], just as my asserting the fact that the guy hitting the wrong note doesn't have to or need to change his problem if he doesn't wish to [sic]. Now, how did you say humans could communicate if language is relative?
"Let's try this again. You saying something is my problem won't make me agree with you that it is my problem."
Of course it doesn't have to. You could be an alcoholic in denial, I could correctly call you an alcoholic, and you could disagree until your liver fell on the floor from alcoholism. You don't "have to agree" with anything I'm saying. You can call the furry thing a 'car' until you're blue in the face, and actually believe it. The fact is, you'll still be wrong, regardless of what you believe. Your awareness of your being wrong is irrelevant.
"You can continue to believe that it's my problem all you want, but it's not going to change anything I think or do, as I consider such a belief to be irrelevant to me."
Yes, exactly as I said. Most Scientologists and Pentacostal snake-dancer preachers say the same thing. Most alcoholics say the same thing as well. I've worked with both. It's quite common. And you can consider it to be irrelevant to you all you want. It's still incorrect.
"In other words, I simply don't care if you believe it's my problem. Do you understand?"
Uhh...I simply don't care if you care that I think it's your problem. It is nothing but. Do you understand?
"What you're doing is demanding that I acquiesce to your semantics because... apparently because you say so."
Here goes the phony libertarian paranoia again. You cn believe that a cat is a car all you want. You can believe libertarians are "capitalists" all you want. You would be wrong in both cases, regardless of whether you realize it or not. And, it's trivially easy to prove. And, if you ask me to prove it, well, be prepared to have to read something. It's usually at this point where one of several responses happen, the most common being a refusal to look at any material which may threaten their belief system, and the usual and predictable excuses as to why this isn't necessary. In fact, this is accounts for about 98%. Another common response would be to just disappear. Another common response would be to start attacking in various and tediously juvenile ways. Anyway, it's up to you. So, just out of curiosity, what anarchist or libertarian works have you read? Oh, and neither Rothbard nor Mises qualify. I said 'anarchists' or 'libertarians'.
"As I keep trying to point out and make clear, I'm under no obligation to do that. That is, I don't consider myself to be unde thinkersr any such obligation."
How "independently" admirable of you. You're under no obligation to not walk in traffic either. Many things you're not under any obligation to do. You're not under any obligation to call a cat a cat. You can call them cars. You can even call pro-capitalist propertarians libertarians or anarchists if you so desire. In all cases you'll simply be wrong.
"I've already explained how I said humans could communicate if language is relative. Please check out this post and this post. You seem to be ignoring them for some reason."
I've ignored nothing, nor do I have a reason to.
kropotkinbeard:
I think they know if they have a problem or not. They don't at all [sic]. The violinist is absolutely responsible for his making his mistake [sic] and hitting the wrong note [sic]. If he can't hit the correct note [sic], it is no one else's problem but his [sic]. Here, let's try this. If I am a therapist, and someone comes to me with a problem, perhaps a problem that they're not even aware of, it is in no way, shape, or form 'my problem'. If they annoy me because they keep repeating the same crap over and over, yes, I will have to deal with it somehow, but that's not a problem unless it begins interfering with the therapy [sic].
"No one performed the violinist's actions but himself - I completely agree with that."
Good. At least we have that much settled.
"However, what you're saying seems to imply that the violinist deserves some kind of penalty simply if he fails to satisfy certain expectations of certain other people."
You should perhaps quit guessing what believe me to be implying. I say what I mean directly. I don't need to imply anything. That being said, he may, depending on how often he makes the mistake, and the temperment of the conductor, receive some kind of penalty, as he should. And this is precisely becuse people have pid to come and hear a piece they're familiar with and like, and they've been cheated if they don't. It's now, in this sense, their problem, unless the money was no issue. But it is still the problem of the violinist who triggered the reaction due to his problem.
"Is that accurate? If so, what kind of penalty do you think he deserves, and why? If not, what are you actually implying here?"
He may deserve to be booted out of the orchestra. Depends on the conductor.
kropotkinbeard: And, again, what would I have to be annoyed by? You don't have to act in accordance with anyone's expectations. You can call a "cat" a "car" all you want, and tell people who point out that there is a difference that they're annoyed because you aren't acting in accordance with their expectations [sic]. And this will still be your problem, not theirs [sic]. But if everything is relative, which, actually it probably is in a deeper sense, but nothing we've approached here, then it just wouldn't matter what sound you used for that furry thing, or anything else [sic].
"I'd really like to know what you mean by "it just wouldn't matter".
Well, if you believe language and words to be relative, it just doesn't matter what noises you make. Any noise can mean anything anyone wants, and this will put an end to most all communication other than perhaps gestures.
"I fail to see how saying that meaning is relative equates to saying that meaning does not and cannot exist in any way whatsoever - which seems to be what you're implying."
That's because you're a relativist perhaps. Even this statement demonstrates it. If meaning is relative, and there is no shared upon notions of meaning, then you would not be communicating with me right now. Meaning, if it has any meaning itself, cannot possibly be relative. If I say 'catt' and you think 'elephant', I say 'car' and you think 'spoon, I say 'libertarian' and you think 'capitalist', well, language is simply pointless as a means of communication. This is really odd given that it is precisely language which lies at the base of everything we know, much less being able to talk about it precisely because we know. And that there are many languages is completely irrelvant as well. Actually, that there is a variety supports my position.
"But I think you're annoyed because I'm not going along with what you're saying."
Yeah, I'm aware that this is what you want to think, but you're simply wrong, again. I'm not annoyed at all. I have no reason to be annoyed.
"I think the phrasing you're using betrays this annoyance, such as using the word "period" after making a factual claim, as though you won't allow any questioning of the claim."
You think wrong. If I say period it's because there's nothing to discuss. It's a closed issue. Just like if you were to want to debate the flatness of the earth and I said it was round, period.
"To that I say, too bad, I'll question it all I want. You can't stop me."
And again your paranoia of someone trying to control you is creeping in. You really need to relax. It almost sounds as if you've done thing for the last several years than to listen, watch, and absorb all the babble which Stefan Molyneux is always pouring out. That really would be enough to make a person paranoid. But then again, look at the source. Molyneuw can't express a sentence without throwing in "coercion" of the evil "state". "Hey! Where's my tie?" "The state took it." "Hey, why is the toilet paper pink?" "The state did it." It's actually embarassing, and would be funny were it not so dangerous.
kropotkinbeard: You seem to be going off into what resembles what phony libertarians often do now, by projecting your own dissatisfaction onto me. I could care less if you act differently. I'm simply pointing out that you're hitting the wrong note [sic], and it does matter to folks who care about the score [sic], thoug it is your problem, not theirs [sic].
"First off, I'm simply trying to refute the claims you're making. Just what dissatisfaction do you think I'm projecting onto you, exactly?"
I've already said. I don't make such assertions without saying what they are at the time. What did I say?
"This sounds like the old "I know you are, but what am I?" canard, to be honest."
Check your hearing.
"Second, just because other people don't like how I'm using a certain word doesn't mean I have to care about that."
I haven't once said you or anyone else had to care. They can say a cat is a car all they want. They're simply wrong. If they don't care, I don't care, unless, that is, their mistakes actually cause harm, which is highly likely.
"And if I don't care about it, and I don't think I have any problem there, then what difference do you expect it to make to me?"
I don't. Why on earth would you think I did? I've only said 5,000 times now that you can think you don't have a problem by calling a cat a car all you want. A problem is still a problem, regardless of whether you're aware of it. It helps to be aware of it though. This is why when working with alcoholics and people in denial that the first step is for them to even acknowledge that they have a problem. This alone can take years sometimes. Then, AFTER they realize they have a problem, they can start working to change it. This alone should make it obvious that I epxect nothing from you.
"I think you're annoyed (if not pissed off now)"
Again, this is probably projection because I'm neither annoyed or pissed off. This is YOU projecting what you are onto me.
"...that your efforts to get me and other anarcho-capitalists to change their semantics have been entirely in vain up to this point."
LOL...That you've even said this proves my point even further. I haven't once said that you had to change anything. I've simply said that if you think you are an "anarcho"-capitalist, you are wrong. Why on earth would that annoy me in the slightest, much less make me "pissed off"? And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "semantics" anymore than my calling a cat a cat instead of car as you prefer has to do wih semantics.
"That's why I think you're continuing to respond the way you are, even after I explained to you that your efforts there would in all likelihood not succeed."
Huh? My efforts? What efforts? You think I've come here to try and make you stop incorrectly using words incorrectly? I've come here precisely for what is happening at this very moment. I've more than satisfied with the data collected thus far. In fact, you can keep giving it to me if you want. You're helping me far more than you realize. I can't believe that you actually thought that I was even remotely considering that you might change your position. That's never been in the deck at all. You're giving yourself far too much credit for something you think you've done, but haven't.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, I am anti-authoritarian and I haven't even hinted in a sentence anything to the contrary [sic]. Pointing out that someone is making a mistake [sic] has nothing whatsoever to do with being an authoritarian. If I tell my son that his math problem of 2+2=5 is incorrect, I hardly think the charge of "authoritarian" would be the appropriate response. And if he did try and use this term, he would simply be [incorrect] about that as well and then I've have to teach him the difference be education and "coercion". If you're concerned about what authoritarianism is, perhaps you should read a few of the writings of actual libertarians and anarchists [sic]. Mises and Rothbard aren't even in the ballpark. In fact, they're cheerleaders for nothing but authoritarianism[sic].
"I'm not even sure what you and other left-anarchists mean by the term "authority" (along with the term "hierarchy")."
That you've admited this demonstrates that you are nothing having to do with anarchism or libertarian. Just call yourself a propertarian if you've accidentally been calling yourself a libertarian up to this point. Maybe no one will notice. And believe me, the libertarians and anarchists will be most appreciative. You won't have to go through this entire thing with all of them over and over.
"I asked you before to provide your definitions for those terms, and you ignored it."
I have ignored nothing. But that you're even asking me to provide definitions is already an admission of not knowing. There are any number of a thousand places where you can find out if you want, and if you can break away from church long enough. I'll give you two just because these are the closest ones at hand, and are quite succinct. Just go to the 'Anachist Writers' website and search for, say, '150 Years of Libertarian', 'Rothbard, We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists', and if you really want a a little longer and more in depth one 'What would an anarchist society look like'. This one is good as it deals with several of Mises' problems which one is usually not taught in the Church of Mises.
"But it seems clear to me that you're trying to appear to me to be more powerful than me, with the implication that I'm obligated to acquiesce to those who at least appear to be more powerful than me."
Again, this is your obession with power, having power, coercion, etc....This is comon among authoritarians. They often see the world around them as being authoritarian. This, again, is a common example of projection, and anyone who has ever studied authoritarian personalities is well aware of this. I'm not fixated on power and the state trying to get me. You are.
"That's why I accuse you of acting in an authoritarian manner despite calling yourself an anti-authoritarian."
Yes, ths is just another misperception which supports everything I've been saying.
"Also, let me ask you this: if your son told you that he didn't care whether you thought he was making a mistake, what would you do then?"
Depends on what it was. If it was something which might harm him, then I'd stop him from doing whatever it was, regardless if force was necessary. If it was something harmless I'd encourage him to do it so that he'd learn the hard way. What do you want me to say I would do? Use "violence" and "force" against him? This would also be a projection on your part.
"Would you let him go on his merry way? Or would you start threatening (if not using) force against him unless he acted in conformance with your expectations of him?"
Here we go again. Please, do yourself a favor and flush down the toilet everything you've ever heard from Molyneux regarding psychology. He is inept at best in this field. And quit pushing your nonsense theory of force onto me. This is simply textbook projection.
It is not my problem from any angle. It's simply recognizing that they're using a term incorrectly. This would make it their problem. That they aren't aware that they're doing so IS their problem. For example (again), were the fellow having a heart attack on the sidewalk to tell the person who had just stopped to help him to take him to McDonald's, due to his mistaken notion that McDonald's was where people having heart attacks went for help, rather than going to what normal persons would call a hospital, it is in no way, shape, or form my problem, the helpers problem, or anyone else's but the guy who is going to die now because he used the wrong term. This generalizes to most other words as well, though, admittedly, to varying degrees. The notion of "like" has never entered the conversation that I'm aware of.
kropotkinbeard: John Doe: "Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?" Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.
John Doe: "Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?"
"Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights?"
Again, anyone claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist(at least the anti-state communists) are against any and all enslavement. Ideally, there would be no need or use for "government" per se, but rather mutually agreed upon, democratic that is, by definition, chosen group of people to perform whatever functions the free and democratically-minded people decided they do. Regarding rights, there is no such thing, other than what people decide for there to be. There's most definitely not anything like "natural rights" in my opinion.
kropotkinbeard: Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty.
"Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose?"
As I said before, yes, a person could choose to be someone else's slave, though I doubt it would really be freely, though it is logically possible. My argument is that were one claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist...would simply not be in favor of such relationships, and anyone who would support them simply is not a libertarian/anarchist. Therefore, if someone is a propertarian, pro-capitalist, exploiter of other people's labor, then they cannot be a libertarian. They can call themselves whatever they wish, say, penguins, but they are not penguins any more than they are libertarians.
kropotkinbeard: This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.
"Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled "capitalism"?"
All other types of capitalism have never gotten past the Somalia stage. But this is irrelevant to the fact that laissez-faire would also have hierarchical, anti-democratic, anti-liberty, anti-freedom structures. But if you can show me how capitalism would not 1)need to use other people's labor to profit off of, 2)lead to hierarchical relations, 3)lead away from equality 4)exploit the environment simply because it was profitable to do so, which it is now, and would be much worse with fewer regulations (the reason that regulations came into existence in the first place), and there are many more things, but we can start here.
kropotkinbeard: There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero.
"Tribal societies = the state?"
Two different things. Also, the notion of "the state" depends on what you mean by it when you say it. Same goes for what you're thinking when you say 'tribal society'. Depends on how it's organized. If the tribal society is democratic, it's good. If it's not, it's not. Same goes with "the state". If we call a body of free people, elected by free people, doing whatever the free people have decided that they do, well, then "the state" would be a great thing. If it's an unaccountable body of people, self-elected, who are not acountable to the people, and are endlessly influenced by wealth and privilege i.e.private tyrannies, as most all tyrannies have been, then it's a bad thing. In a good scenario where there is freedom and democracy, which, by definition there must be in a democracy or it simply isn't a democracy, the us(the people), them(the government) is sinply an illusion, or false dichotomy.
kropotkinbeard: And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried.
"People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like?"
Not quite. They have never developed in large part because they've never had a state to help in it's development. They aren't anarchist in any sense other than the sense of chaos and anarchy. An anarchist/libertarian system is in no way, shape, or form against organization, development, or anything else. And they're sure not for an every man for himself social Darwinist monkey-poop slinging scenario where there are simply people running around trying to "capitalize" off everything. Again, anarchists are against pillage, plunder, and the tyranny of the minority i.e.the only type which has ever existed.
kropotkinbeard: Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that.
"The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority?"
Okay, you've introduced the myth of the "tyranny of the majority". It doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. You have the first part correct, but dropped the ball at your misunderstanding of democracy and how it works. If 51% vote, which is THE ONLY freedom one should every expect to have if living with anyone else, then of course the majority should rule. And, please spare me any pseudo-arguments about "What if 51% decided to reinstitute slavery?" Yes, they could. But in the real world it simply doesn't happen, and doesn't happen for very trivial reasons. In fact, democracies do the opposite, also for very trivial reasons. In addition, they most often protect minorities, and for the simple reason that as democratically-minded people who understand freedom, they may themselves be the minority on the next issue. This is Democracy 101, and is why most minorities are and always have been attracted to democracy rather than tyranny i.e.anti-democracy. You don't have to tell me who fights for minority rights, as I'm fully well aware. Certain concepts which oddly enough seem to be alien to many from the phony-libertarian religion seem to have never understood what basic concepts as "compromise" mean. Also, many seem to have some vague and childish notion that they're going to somehow have their way 100% of the time when they're not. Both of these things together seem to demostrate a developmental difficulty which most folks usually pass through by early elementary school. Probably didn't help many people to have vile people like Ayn Rand attempting to wee out normal human sentiments.
Your logic is handicapped. Yes, I consider a problem for them. It's not my problem anymore than would it be were they to call 'cats' 'elephants'. In fact, has nothing to do with me other than I'm the one pointing out the problem. But if you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it. ANd I'm not into reading tossed chicken bones or astrology, so make sure if you have something it's something serious. Also, there is no such category as "ancaps" so your next statement is meaningless. But I'm quite sure that there are people who can find other people who believe that those little furry thing which purr are called "elephants" as well. Has nothing to do with their babble not being nonsense. It also has nothing to do with "semantics". You're the one with the problem here, and your failure to recognize your projection, and take responsibility for it, well, speaks for itself. "Everyone else"? You think that "everyone else" believes that there is such a thing as an "ancap"? Hahahahahaha........Here, I'll give you a challenge, Read one book on anarchism or libertarianism before your 80. It's apparent you have read nothing and know nothing of the history of this topic. Return when you have and I may donate some of my time to you.
Malachi: You are the one who considers it a problem, therefore it must be your problem. Ancaps dont have problems communicating with people, you just do not approve of their semantic preferences. Youre the one with the problem here, and your failure to take responsibility for your problem (by trying to make it a problem for everyone else) is another problem of yours.
You are the one who considers it a problem, therefore it must be your problem. Ancaps dont have problems communicating with people, you just do not approve of their semantic preferences. Youre the one with the problem here, and your failure to take responsibility for your problem (by trying to make it a problem for everyone else) is another problem of yours.
QFT. So long as there is communication between two parties, there is no problem. In other words, if the speaker conveys his ideas and the listener understands the speaker's meaning, there is no problem of communication. Any other problems are not problems of communication. They are subjective problems, and no one is obligated to care about those "problems".
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe:Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights?Again, anyone claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist(at least the anti-state communists) are against any and all enslavement. Ideally, there would be no need or use for "government" per se, but rather mutually agreed upon, democratic that is, by definition, chosen group of people to perform whatever functions the free and democratically-minded people decided they do. Regarding rights, there is no such thing, other than what people decide for there to be. There's most definitely not anything like "natural rights" in my opinion.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe:Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe:Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.
Johnny Doe:Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty.Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose?As I said before, yes, a person could choose to be someone else's slave, though I doubt it would really be freely, though it is logically possible. My argument is that were one claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist...would simply not be in favor of such relationships, and anyone who would support them simply is not a libertarian/anarchist. Therefore, if someone is a propertarian, pro-capitalist, exploiter of other people's labor, then they cannot be a libertarian. They can call themselves whatever they wish, say, penguins, but they are not penguins any more than they are libertarians.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty.Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled "capitalism"?All other types of capitalism have never gotten past the Somalia stage. But this is irrelevant to the fact that laissez-faire would also have hierarchical, anti-democratic, anti-liberty, anti-freedom structures. But if you can show me how capitalism would not 1)need to use other people's labor to profit off of, 2)lead to hierarchical relations, 3)lead away from equality 4)exploit the environment simply because it was profitable to do so, which it is now, and would be much worse with fewer regulations (the reason that regulations came into existence in the first place), and there are many more things, but we can start here.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled "capitalism"?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero.Tribal societies = the state?Two different things. Also, the notion of "the state" depends on what you mean by it when you say it. Same goes for what you're thinking when you say 'tribal society'. Depends on how it's organized. If the tribal society is democratic, it's good. If it's not, it's not. Same goes with "the state". If we call a body of free people, elected by free people, doing whatever the free people have decided that they do, well, then "the state" would be a great thing.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero.Tribal societies = the state?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried.People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like?Not quite. They have never developed in large part because they've never had a state to help in it's development.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried.People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that.The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority?Okay, you've introduced the myth of the "tyranny of the majority". It doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. You have the first part correct, but dropped the ball at your misunderstanding of democracy and how it works. If 51% vote, which is THE ONLY freedom one should every expect to have if living with anyone else, then of course the majority should rule.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard:Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that.The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority?
kropotkinbeard:And, please spare me any pseudo-arguments about "What if 51% decided to reinstitute slavery?" Yes, they could. But in the real world it simply doesn't happen, and doesn't happen for very trivial reasons.
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)? Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom. Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights? Again, anyone claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist(at least the anti-state communists) are against any and all enslavement. Ideally, there would be no need or use for "government" per se, but rather mutually agreed upon, democratic that is, by definition, chosen group of people to perform whatever functions the free and democratically-minded people decided they do. Regarding rights, there is no such thing, other than what people decide for there to be. There's most definitely not anything like "natural rights" in my opinion.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)? Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom. Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights?
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)? Sure, it's possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it's opposite. I'm well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc...It simply isn't if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you've listed in any sense related to freedom.
Johnny Doe: Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?
"So when people are enslaved by nature, all the people will agree on giving some people the power to perform functions(will all the people actually agree, or just the majority). Or are you refering to a voluntary arrangement, where only the people who choose to have someone perform functions on their behalf, will have people performing functions on their behalf, and anyone who prefers other solutions are free to choose their prefered solution?"
Firstly, it's difficult to say what "all people" will ever decide. It's probably safe to assume that "all people" won't always decide the same thing all of the time as well. This is simply a given. It's also irrelevant. When you say "all the people agreeing on giving some people the power to perform functions..." it should be stressed that this "power" isn't any form of hierarchical power position. It simply means they have a certain job. If they have unaccountable power then it's simply not an anarchist/libertarian society. And, of course, it will be what the majority decide if there is going to be any type of freedom at all. AGain, you're hinting at the myth of "mob rule" which simply doesn't exist in the real world, with regards to democracy that is. Nothing at all. But sure others 'may' be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't clash with everyone else. If there are a ciruit of non-hierarchical collectives working together, and then someone wishes to introduce some sort of capitalist, hierarchical, anti-liberty, anti-freedom scam, then I'd hope it wouldn't be okay. This is the reason for wishing to have a libertarian society in the first place. A libertarian society is NOT simply tossing all rules, organization, laws, etc...out the window in order to create a chaos which would allow the less moral pillagers and plunderers to have a freer reign. May as well go straight back to spavery again. Again, the notion of "tyranny of the majority" doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. The ONLY types of tyrannies which have ever existed have been tyrannies of the minority.
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty. Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose? As I said before, yes, a person could choose to be someone else's slave, though I doubt it would really be freely, though it is logically possible. My argument is that were one claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist...would simply not be in favor of such relationships, and anyone who would support them simply is not a libertarian/anarchist. Therefore, if someone is a propertarian, pro-capitalist, exploiter of other people's labor, then they cannot be a libertarian. They can call themselves whatever they wish, say, penguins, but they are not penguins any more than they are libertarians.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty. Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose?
"But what is mutually beneficial and what is exploitation in a business arrangement where some provide the ideas/knowhow/machines/factory bulidings etc and the others perform the work under the direction of the former?"
Firstly, those whom you are saying "provide the ideas/knowhow/machines...." seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others. They live under the illusion that they "own" these places simply because they may have built these places using the labor of others, or worse yet, that they're somehow entitled to having more. Well, that's just a problem they'll have to grow out of. There will be no "direction of the former" unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It's just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty. This is why ALL libertarians (amarchists, socialists, anti-state communists) have always been anti-capitalist, and is why one simply cannot be an "anarchco"-capitalst. Again, this label is an oxymoron which amounts to calling someone a "free-slave".
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state. Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled "capitalism"? All other types of capitalism have never existed in history. (accidentally erased something here)
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800's. It wasn't till the around the 1970's when the term "libertarian" began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of "freeing up society" for pillage and plunder easier. Regarding government intervention, well, while I'm no big fan of "the state", the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state. Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled "capitalism"?
1. Again, But what is mutually beneficial and what is exploitation in a business arrangement where some provide the ideas/knowhow/machines/factory buildings etc..and the others perform the work under the direction of the former"
Exploitation is firstly where someone has used the labor of another to profit off of. Also, it depends on what you mean by "a business arrangement". I'd hope that there was no such thing as a "business arrangement" even existing. There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible. The notion of "profitting" won't have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like 'has X benefitted society' as a whole. It most definitely would not be 'has X benefitted me'. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it?
"2. But what if the hierarchical relations are voluntary and in everyones best interest, i.e. they`d be better off than in a horizontal relationship?"
As I've already said, if the free people freely vote to have a hierarchical relationship whereby they will have no say so in what their labor is being used for, how it's being used, or anything else, well, it's logically possible that one would vote themselves into slavery, but highly doubtful. And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed". And they most certainly have no right of authority over anyone else, especially those doing the work. But slave owners used the same argument as you've introduced here. However, if by some odd chance that person X does have a special skill from which all others would benefit, it's possible that the people would allow him to assume a role of 'responsibility', but not 'authority' in any sense which entails power over people. And he most definitely would not benefit from the position in any way in excess of everyone else involved in the project.
"3. But what if people have different abilities, should everyone perform the same work, even though voluntary/mutually benificial division of labor would be in everyones best interest in regards to what the group as a whole would achieve?"
Of course they're going to have different abilities. This is no way, shape or form necessarily translates to some having more and others less. And everyone should do the work which the want to do, and which collectively everyone decides which they want to have done, how things will be traded, etc....But for the most part nothing you've just said contradicts anything I've offered. Any time two people are doing two different things there is a division of labor. This isn't an issue. The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship.
"4. Isn`t there a danger that regulations are implemented on behalf of the people who want to profit, i.e. regulations that are influenced by lobbyist etc. perhaps the government permit pollution for "the common good" for instance?"
Yes. They usually try and arrange things so as to eliminate anyone from interfering with the monopoly they'd like to have. Your questions seem to still be based from a capitalist economic model, and assumes the "rules" built into that model. This is why it's often difficult even conversing with a pro-capitalist person (not that you've even claimed to be one). The just take a almost a law of nature that this economic model is THE only model, and then see everything through those lens. They also assume that those who reject the model just don't get it because were they to understand, well, they simply couldn't refuse. It would be like refusing a law of nature such as gravity or something. Most critiques DO understand, and simply don't like it, or at least aspects of it, from step one. It's also not that they can't see or don't understand what achievements have been made using this model, just as one could see achievements made under slavery. Still not a good reason for continuing slavery.
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero. Tribal societies = the state? Two different things. Also, the notion of "the state" depends on what you mean by it when you say it. Same goes for what you're thinking when you say 'tribal society'. Depends on how it's organized. If the tribal society is democratic, it's good. If it's not, it's not. Same goes with "the state". If we call a body of free people, elected by free people, doing whatever the free people have decided that they do, well, then "the state" would be a great thing.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero. Tribal societies = the state?
"If everyone in a nationstate agrees(isn`t that unlikely, i.e. large number of people agreeing on some central planning)?"
If I've said "everyone" it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That's too bad for them. They'll have to act like aduclts and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide. They're as free as they were before. What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it. SImilarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has.
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried. People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like? Not quite. They have never developed in large part because they've never had a state to help in it's development.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried. People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like?
"So a central planning state is necessary in order to achieve development"
No, not at all a "central planning" state. No country at all has developed with out some sort of state. This is quite different. Also, libertarians/socialists/anarchists/communists are anti-central planning, as the entire history of libertarianism (socialists, anarchists, communist) shows.
kropotkinbeard: Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that. The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority? Okay, you've introduced the myth of the "tyranny of the majority". It doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. You have the first part correct, but dropped the ball at your misunderstanding of democracy and how it works. If 51% vote, which is THE ONLY freedom one should every expect to have if living with anyone else, then of course the majority should rule.
Johnny Doe: kropotkinbeard: Also, the entire notion of "the state" should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc...there would be no "state" if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it's simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that's that. The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority?
"On what scale should 51 % majority rule apply, and should it be mandatory, i.e. should everyone be forced to live under the rule of the majority?"
Of course. If they expect to have any sort of freedom in society democratic structures are the only way to have been show to work. The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies. This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom. Oh, and given that there's not a democracy, most definitely 'NO' there is no 51% rule now. Were there to be one the U.S. would probably never go to war, military spending would be way down, spending on healthcare and education and even welfare would be way up, and on and on...All of these things have been prevented precisely by NOT being democratic, and unaccountable private tyrannies have been the primary cause. This is anti-democracy and anti-liberty and freedom.
kropotkinbeard:Firstly, it's difficult to say what "all people" will ever decide. It's probably safe to assume that "all people" won't always decide the same thing all of the time as well. This is simply a given. It's also irrelevant. When you say "all the people agreeing on giving some people the power to perform functions..." it should be stressed that this "power" isn't any form of hierarchical power position. It simply means they have a certain job. If they have unaccountable power then it's simply not an anarchist/libertarian society. And, of course, it will be what the majority decide if there is going to be any type of freedom at all. AGain, you're hinting at the myth of "mob rule" which simply doesn't exist in the real world, with regards to democracy that is.
kropotkinbeard:Nothing at all. But sure others 'may' be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't clash with everyone else. If there are a ciruit of non-hierarchical collectives working together, and then someone wishes to introduce some sort of capitalist, hierarchical, anti-liberty, anti-freedom scam, then I'd hope it wouldn't be okay.
kropotkinbeard:This is the reason for wishing to have a libertarian society in the first place. A libertarian society is NOT simply tossing all rules, organization, laws, etc...out the window in order to create a chaos which would allow the less moral pillagers and plunderers to have a freer reign. May as well go straight back to spavery again. Again, the notion of "tyranny of the majority" doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. The ONLY types of tyrannies which have ever existed have been tyrannies of the minority.
kropotkinbeard:Firstly, those whom you are saying "provide the ideas/knowhow/machines...." seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others.
kropotkinbeard:They live under the illusion that they "own" these places simply because they may have built these places using the labor of others
kropotkinbeard:, or worse yet, that they're somehow entitled to having more. Well, that's just a problem they'll have to grow out of. There will be no "direction of the former" unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It's just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty.
kropotkinbeard:This is why ALL libertarians (amarchists, socialists, anti-state communists) have always been anti-capitalist, and is why one simply cannot be an "anarchco"-capitalst. Again, this label is an oxymoron which amounts to calling someone a "free-slave". Exploitation is firstly where someone has used the labor of another to profit off of.
kropotkinbeard:Also, it depends on what you mean by "a business arrangement". I'd hope that there was no such thing as a "business arrangement" even existing. There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible.
kropotkinbeard:The notion of "profitting" won't have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like 'has X benefitted society' as a whole. It most definitely would not be 'has X benefitted me'. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it?
kropotkinbeard:As I've already said, if the free people freely vote to have a hierarchical relationship whereby they will have no say so in what their labor is being used for, how it's being used, or anything else, well, it's logically possible that one would vote themselves into slavery, but highly doubtful.
kropotkinbeard:And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed".
kropotkinbeard:And they most certainly have no right of authority over anyone else, especially those doing the work.
kropotkinbeard:But slave owners used the same argument as you've introduced here.
kropotkinbeard:However, if by some odd chance that person X does have a special skill from which all others would benefit, it's possible that the people would allow him to assume a role of 'responsibility', but not 'authority' in any sense which entails power over people. And he most definitely would not benefit from the position in any way in excess of everyone else involved in the project.
kropotkinbeard:Of course they're going to have different abilities. This is no way, shape or form necessarily translates to some having more and others less.
kropotkinbeard:And everyone should do the work which the want to do,
kropotkinbeard:and which collectively everyone decides which they want to have done, how things will be traded, etc....
kropotkinbeard:But for the most part nothing you've just said contradicts anything I've offered. Any time two people are doing two different things there is a division of labor. This isn't an issue. The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship.
kropotkinbeard:Yes. They usually try and arrange things so as to eliminate anyone from interfering with the monopoly they'd like to have. Your questions seem to still be based from a capitalist economic model, and assumes the "rules" built into that model.
kropotkinbeard:This is why it's often difficult even conversing with a pro-capitalist person (not that you've even claimed to be one). The just take a almost a law of nature that this economic model is THE only model, and then see everything through those lens.
kropotkinbeard:They also assume that those who reject the model just don't get it because were they to understand,
kropotkinbeard:well, they simply couldn't refuse. It would be like refusing a law of nature such as gravity or something. Most critiques DO understand, and simply don't like it, or at least aspects of it, from step one. It's also not that they can't see or don't understand what achievements have been made using this model, just as one could see achievements made under slavery. Still not a good reason for continuing slavery.
kropotkinbeard:If I've said "everyone" it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That's too bad for them.
kropotkinbeard:They'll have to act like aduclts and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide.
kropotkinbeard:They're as free as they were before. What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it.
kropotkinbeard:SImilarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has.
kropotkinbeard:No, not at all a "central planning" state. No country at all has developed with out some sort of state.
kropotkinbeard:This is quite different. Also, libertarians/socialists/anarchists/communists are anti-central planning, as the entire history of libertarianism (socialists, anarchists, communist) shows.
kropotkinbeard:Of course. If they expect to have any sort of freedom in society democratic structures are the only way to have been show to work.
kropotkinbeard:The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies. This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom.
kropotkinbeard:Oh, and given that there's not a democracy, most definitely 'NO' there is no 51% rule now. Were there to be one the U.S. would probably never go to war, military spending would be way down, spending on healthcare and education and even welfare would be way up, and on and on...All of these things have been prevented precisely by NOT being democratic, and unaccountable private tyrannies have been the primary cause. This is anti-democracy and anti-liberty and freedom.
The Texas Trigger: What are your thoughts? painful to say this sometimes, as even Mises was no AnCap.
I say that the social definition of a libertarian being one who advocates maximum liberty with minimum government, minarchists most certainly qualify. Anarcho-capitalists are dreamers; minarchists are realists. Maybe Mises was on to something (gee, ya think?).
Re: To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians? By Johnny Doe in Political Theory
kropotkinbeard: Firstly, it's difficult to say what "all people" will ever decide. It's probably safe to assume that "all people" won't always decide the same thing all of the time as well. This is simply a given. It's also irrelevant. When you say "all the people agreeing on giving some people the power to perform functions..." it should be stressed that this "power" isn't any form of hierarchical power position. It simply means they have a certain job. If they have unaccountable power then it's simply not an anarchist/libertarian society. And, of course, it will be what the majority decide if there is going to be any type of freedom at all. AGain, you're hinting at the myth of "mob rule" which simply doesn't exist in the real world, with regards to democracy that is.
"But is democracy/mob rule hierarchical?"
kropotkinbeard: Nothing at all. But sure others 'may' be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't clash with everyone else. If there are a ciruit of non-hierarchical collectives working together, and then someone wishes to introduce some sort of capitalist, hierarchical, anti-liberty, anti-freedom scam, then I'd hope it wouldn't be okay.
kropotkinbeard: This is the reason for wishing to have a libertarian society in the first place. A libertarian society is NOT simply tossing all rules, organization, laws, etc...out the window in order to create a chaos which would allow the less moral pillagers and plunderers to have a freer reign. May as well go straight back to spavery again. Again, the notion of "tyranny of the majority" doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. The ONLY types of tyrannies which have ever existed have been tyrannies of the minority.
kropotkinbeard: Firstly, those whom you are saying "provide the ideas/knowhow/machines...." seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others.
kropotkinbeard: They live under the illusion that they "own" these places simply because they may have built these places using the labor of others
kropotkinbeard: , or worse yet, that they're somehow entitled to having more. Well, that's just a problem they'll have to grow out of. There will be no "direction of the former" unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It's just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty.
kropotkinbeard: This is why ALL libertarians (amarchists, socialists, anti-state communists) have always been anti-capitalist, and is why one simply cannot be an "anarchco"-capitalst. Again, this label is an oxymoron which amounts to calling someone a "free-slave". "Exploitation is firstly where someone has used the labor of another to profit off of. So cooperation = exploitation?" This is one example of exploitation, yes. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, more.Of course not. Cooperation is cooperation. This is precisely what most all anarchists/socialists/communists/libertarians wish to do. Top down, hierarchical, authoritarian, structures in which some are bosses and others are taking orders, especially when the former are profiting off the labor of the latter, is simply not condoned. But if people are given a free vote and they choose to sell their liberty and freedom for another to exploit I guess it's logically possible.
kropotkinbeard: Also, it depends on what you mean by "a business arrangement". I'd hope that there was no such thing as a "business arrangement" even existing. There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible.
kropotkinbeard: The notion of "profitting" won't have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like 'has X benefitted society' as a whole. It most definitely would not be 'has X benefitted me'. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it?
kropotkinbeard: As I've already said, if the free people freely vote to have a hierarchical relationship whereby they will have no say so in what their labor is being used for, how it's being used, or anything else, well, it's logically possible that one would vote themselves into slavery, but highly doubtful.
kropotkinbeard: And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed".
kropotkinbeard: And they most certainly have no right of authority over anyone else, especially those doing the work.
kropotkinbeard: But slave owners used the same argument as you've introduced here.
kropotkinbeard: However, if by some odd chance that person X does have a special skill from which all others would benefit, it's possible that the people would allow him to assume a role of 'responsibility', but not 'authority' in any sense which entails power over people. And he most definitely would not benefit from the position in any way in excess of everyone else involved in the project.
kropotkinbeard: Of course they're going to have different abilities. This is no way, shape or form necessarily translates to some having more and others less.
kropotkinbeard: And everyone should do the work which the want to do,
kropotkinbeard: and which collectively everyone decides which they want to have done, how things will be traded, etc....
kropotkinbeard: But for the most part nothing you've just said contradicts anything I've offered. Any time two people are doing two different things there is a division of labor. This isn't an issue. The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship.
kropotkinbeard: Yes. They usually try and arrange things so as to eliminate anyone from interfering with the monopoly they'd like to have. Your questions seem to still be based from a capitalist economic model, and assumes the "rules" built into that model.
kropotkinbeard: This is why it's often difficult even conversing with a pro-capitalist person (not that you've even claimed to be one). They just take as almost a law of nature that this economic model is THE only model, and then see everything through those lens.
kropotkinbeard: They also assume that those who reject the model just don't get it because were they to understand,
kropotkinbeard: well, they simply couldn't refuse. It would be like refusing a law of nature such as gravity or something. Most critiques DO understand, and simply don't like it, or at least aspects of it, from step one. It's also not that they can't see or don't understand what achievements have been made using this model, just as one could see achievements made under slavery. Still not a good reason for continuing slavery.
kropotkinbeard: If I've said "everyone" it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That's too bad for them.
kropotkinbeard: They'll have to act like adults and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide.
kropotkinbeard: They're as free as they were before. What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it.
kropotkinbeard: SImilarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has.
kropotkinbeard: No, not at all a "central planning" state. No country at all has developed with out some sort of state.
kropotkinbeard: This is quite different. Also, libertarians/socialists/anarchists/communists are anti-central planning, as the entire history of libertarianism (socialists, anarchists, communist) shows.
kropotkinbeard: Of course. If they expect to have any sort of freedom in society democratic structures are the only way to have been show to work.
kropotkinbeard: The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies. This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom.
kropotkinbeard: Oh, and given that there's not a democracy, most definitely 'NO' there is no 51% rule now. Were there to be one the U.S. would probably never go to war, military spending would be way down, spending on healthcare and education and even welfare would be way up, and on and on...All of these things have been prevented precisely by NOT being democratic, and unaccountable private tyrannies have been the primary cause. This is anti-democracy and anti-liberty and freedom.
Kropotkinbeard, could you please provide your definitions of "hierarchy", "freedom", "coercion", and "voluntary"?
kropotkinbeard:No. There is no such thing as "mob rule", nor would it be hierarchical even if it existed.
kropotkinbeard:It's possible to choose to be a slave, yes. And there's nothing remotely efficient about capitalism, not that efficiency really matters that much anyway.
kropotkinbeard:In fact, capitalism is highly inefficient, especially regarding resources, technological advancements, etc...Slavery was also "efficient" by some depraved measures.
kropotkinbeard:Yes, logically this would be possible. However, in the real world, and especially within even the moderately democratic systems which have existed, there has never been a majority tyrannizing a minority. In fact, without exception to my knowledge, it's always been a tyranny of the minority.
kropotkinbeard:It isn't, as long as these things weren't gotten without the exploitation of others, say, by having someone do the work for them. In fact, I'm all for it as long as all of these things are owned by the people for the betterment of people, and not simply for profit.
kropotkinbeard:If they built it using their own hands, then, perhaps, it's debatable. Depends on what the population of free people decide.
kropotkinbeard:You as an individual do not live in a vacuum. You live and most likely will live in proximity to other people. Therefore, you are going to have to work with others.
kropotkinbeard:Of course it's not impossible. Not completely anyway, though there are consequences which keep the workers from doing so much of the time. For one, illegally losing their job by those who have purchased their liberty at the lowest possible price.
kropotkinbeard:And, the workers most definitely have the know how.
kropotkinbeard:I suggest that those who wish to have others do their work for them simply give the bulk of that which is accrued to those having done the work. It's not complicated.
kropotkinbeard:Yeah, I have no problem at all with people working together. As a "lefty", this is a given, if not a requirement..
kropotkinbeard:Uhh...What do you think is beneficial? Food, water, medicine, basic necessities, and whatever the people decide they want, and have the ability to create.
kropotkinbeard:You're not trying to argue the "Who is to decide what I need, how much, etc...", are you? Well, as long as there are some folks unnecessarily starving or dying from lack of clean drinking water, while others are buying gold dog food bowls which they 'think' they 'need', well, I have no problem deciding, along with the vast majority of people on the planet.
kropotkinbeard:If they freely vote without coercion that this is what they want. However, their getting paid is not even close to being an excuse for depriving them of their liberty, which is precisely what it is when one person works fro another to profit off his labor, whether he agrees to it or not.
kropotkinbeard:Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well. In addition, when workers have more say so in the day to day working of the company they do much more work, for obvious reasons. In fact, working under external command after having sacrificed one's liberty, usually out of necessity, people do all sorts of things which cause inefficiency. For a few of the more obvious examples see: http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/
kropotkinbeard:Sure, they could do this. In fact, this is most likely what would happen. Some would be voted into doing whatever jobs they all agreed would be good at. They may rotate jobs, all learning every aspect of the work, as is recommended by many anarchist theorists. Pretty much the opposite of what manufacturers have always done when attempting to deskill workers, and tried to make sure the workers didn't know any more aspects of the job than necessary.
kropotkinbeard:This is an old and long debunked argument. Most people, the vast majority, in fact, do not voluntarily enter into any employment whatsoever. A mother raising two children is in no position to enter into anything voluntarily, nor is anyone else. (See link above)
kropotkinbeard:People aren't the same, so of course they shouldn't get according to their contribution. A young healthy man who can do twice, or even ten times, as much work shouldn't get twice as much as an 80 year old lady and a baby, much less ten times more, just because he can produce more.
kropotkinbeard:Some people are faster,
kropotkinbeard:some slower, some older, some younger, etc....This is precisely why socialist/libertarian/anarchist/democratic thinking is required.
kropotkinbeard:A bigger person may get more food than a baby. Fine. Beyond this, I see no reason for someone to, especially if it's taking away from someone else. And, no, this would most definitely NOT influence how much effort people put into working. If someone would work less because they felt it unfair that a portion of what they've done must go to the baby or grandma, well, they should go somewhere else where other depraved deviants happily reside.
kropotkinbeard:Yes, they probably will need to if capable.
kropotkinbeard:No, there will be no hierarchical relationships. There will be horizontal relationships.
kropotkinbeard:This is perhaps the most complicated concept for many who have indoctrinated since birth that hierarchy is somehow natural, which, even if it were true, but isn't, would be no reason not to change it.
kropotkinbeard:Capitalism, by it's very nature, creates inequality and hierarchical relations,
kropotkinbeard:not to mention all the other negative aspects it has, such as it being incompatible with the environment, etc....
kropotkinbeard:Well, actually, there are at least two set of rules. There are the official ones which the textbooks teach, and are marginally related to the real world
kropotkinbeard:, then there are the ones which are usually at play.
kropotkinbeard:Yeah, I would agree. Capitalism has nothing to do with voluntary cooperation, and precisely to do with force and exploitation, force, and extortion.
kropotkinbeard:It's precisely for this reason that so much effort is put into trying to spin things so as to try and frame these things as their opposites.
kropotkinbeard:Sacrificing your liberty by allowing someone to profit off your labor simply must be reframed as voluntary agreements, etc...This is at best deceitful and at worst a simply lie.
kropotkinbeard:Oh, I most definitely believe there are people who actually believe in "coercion/force/extortion", though none of them are libertarians of the contemporary fake sort.
kropotkinbeard:They also know nothing about voluntarism in any real sense.
kropotkinbeard:It's important for them to use this language though as it helps soften the depravity of what they really desire
kropotkinbeard:, regardless of many being clueless that this is even what they're doing. My positions and those of libertarian/socialist/anarchists most definitely do understand the notions of coercion, force and extortion
kropotkinbeard:, as the only reason they evolved was precisely in response to this.
kropotkinbeard:Neither can someone whose choice is between sacrificing one's liberty and starvation.
kropotkinbeard:Possibly. As long as it doesn't interfere with the majority.
kropotkinbeard:However, it is highly unlikely that they would even want to. And if you follow your logic to its absurd conclusion everyone could build their own roads.
kropotkinbeard:Sorry, but this selfishness simply needs to be tossed.
kropotkinbeard:You are NOT going to get your way all of the time, and not getting it has nothing to do with coercion.
kropotkinbeard:Also, as a lifelong "lefty", I'm not remotely impressed by the fake libertarians false concern for minorities. Minorities are well aware of who does now, and who have always had their interests at heart, and it has always been democracy and democratic thinkers.
kropotkinbeard:This is why the vast majority of every minority has almost always been democratic as well. The minority of the self-proclaimed opulent just don't impress me, nor do I really care what they want or think.
kropotkinbeard:One wouldn't be put in jail for this
kropotkinbeard:, though it still does reek of a capitalist structure.
kropotkinbeard:Depends on what the free people in a free and democratic society freely decide. What it's not going to be is everyone just running around making their own rules like poop-slinging monkeys.
kropotkinbeard:This is a good aspect of it, yes. It will still need to be democratically decided what constitutes "harm".
kropotkinbeard:If a person is hoarding something because, perhaps, they feel they've earned it
kropotkinbeard:, while someone else is harmed by not having it, then the hoarder should be dealt with in whatever way the free people also decide.
kropotkinbeard:There is no "the state" in an anarchist society.
kropotkinbeard:And hopefully the free rational people would decide to get rid of guns, at least for personal use.
kropotkinbeard:But then again many anarchists would probably wish to keep some sort of defense to fend off those who would attempt to re-create hierarchical structures again,
kropotkinbeard:and who have much less problem with resorting to force, as most of history shows.
kropotkinbeard:Not if under the control of the people. This is what happened in the USSR, which was anti-socialist.
kropotkinbeard:Much more freedom than any other societies even with all the limitations and anti-democratic interference by private tyrannical power.
kropotkinbeard:Of course. I have said nothing regarding having central planning as a system, nor is there any necessary relation between this and the majority.
kropotkinbeard:No, why? There are no special interest groups in a society where people are working for the society and the people who live in it. In fact, it's the opposite.
I'm mostly replying here for the comedy value, this is gold.
kropotkinbeard: There is no such thing as "mob rule", nor would it be hierarchical even if it existed. The term 'mob' implies the use of aggression by a group again a minority (ie: rioters attacking store-owners, etc.). Democracy is the use of force by a group against the minority. It is not direct force, not physical, but rather indirect, legal. Calling democracy "mob rule" certainly has derrogatory emphatic connotations, but it is nonetheless accurate. kropotkinbeard:It's possible to choose to be a slave, yes. It's not possible to choose to be a slave, actually. Slavery requires force to make a slave, by definition. Were one to agree to enter's another service voluntarily (this would not be slavery at all), one could also then leave at any time and choose not to associate with the other. Should the other prevent this, they have now made you a slave and have used coercion to prevent your leaving their association. At that moment, you are a slave, and it is against your will. kropotkinbeard:And there's nothing remotely efficient about capitalism, not that efficiency really matters that much anyway. So laughably incorrect that it's hardly worth responding to. Here, read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." You're welcome. kropotkinbeard:In fact, capitalism is highly inefficient, especially regarding resources, technological advancements, etc...Slavery was also "efficient" by some depraved measures. What you mean is capitalism doesn't achieve your egalitarian goals. Only force can achieve them. You're simply equivocating on the meaning of 'efficient' here, as your final sentence indicates clearly. A laissez-faire economic system results in the maximum wealth and goods production of all possible schemes of economic organization. That is the sense in which it is most efficient. It also results in the best distribution of all possible methods, and the most amount of justice, where justice is defined as those whom do the most valuable work receive the most remuneration. It is social injustice to take from the most productive and give to the least productive for the mere fact of being least productive. But as we all know, the least productive are much larger in number, and can overwhelm the most productive when it comes to politics via their much larger voting bloc. Thus, democracy's injustice is made plain, that the masses can vote themselves largesse out of the pockets of the most productive, legally--but NEVER morally. kropotkinbeard:This is the reason for wishing to have a libertarian society in the first place. A libertarian society is NOT simply tossing all rules, organization, laws, etc...out the window in order to create a chaos which would allow the less moral pillagers and plunderers to have a freer reign. May as well go straight back to spavery again. Again, the notion of "tyranny of the majority" doesn't exist anywhere but on paper. The ONLY types of tyrannies which have ever existed have been tyrannies of the minority. Completely ignorant of history. Go back to the histories of Greece and look at the very real breakdowns of every political order which was a true democracy. They devolved to tyranny, but after the majority took from the minority. No clue how you got any other way into your mind. kropotkinbeard: Yes, logically this would be possible. However, in the real world, and especially within even the moderately democratic systems which have existed, there has never been a majority tyrannizing a minority. In fact, without exception to my knowledge, it's always been a tyranny of the minority. Define in real terms this 'tyranny of the minority' you speak of. What are you referring to? I expect it will be something stupid like business owners "tyrannizing" workers or the like. You have no idea that tyranny is not possible between voluntary relations. A business owner cannot tyrannize anyone. kropotkinbeard:There may be one. And I'm not remotely interested in protecting the minority of wealth, power and privilege which is the bane of the world. Uh huh. There you go. Silliness. kropotkinbeard:It IS, however, amazing to see folks unwittingly propagating their ideas at least several thousand years after the earliest known recording of it occurring. Lol, it is the socialists advocating tribalism, not the reverse. kropotkinbeard:Firstly, those whom you are saying "provide the ideas/knowhow/machines...." seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others. What do you mean by exploitation? Is it exploiting the green grocer to buy his produce? If not, how could it be exploitation to buy anyone's labor for any purpose? Rather, what you mean is that you believe in the communist labor theory of value and marx's silly idea that 'one dollar of profit is an unpaid wage.' You don't allow that there is any value in management or distribution. All of which are complete illusions, believed by the economically ignorant. kropotkinbeard:It isn't, as long as these things weren't gotten without the exploitation of others, say, by having someone do the work for them. Listen, this would only be "exploitation" if you didn't pay them to do the work. kropotkinbeard:In fact, I'm all for it as long as all of these things are owned by the people for the betterment of people, and not simply for profit. You're like a parody of a socialist. I can't believe anyone still says these things, so discredited are they. We're talking decades ago. kropotkinbeard:If they built it using their own hands, then, perhaps, it's debatable. Depends on what the population of free people decide. And here you see the socialist ethic at work, the tyranny of the majority. No one person owns anything, he believes, unless the others around him allow him to have it. kropotkinbeard:You as an individual do not live in a vacuum. You live and most likely will live in proximity to other people. Therefore, you are going to have to work with others. Sorry. There are other choices. Shoot yourself. Move away and be by yourself. Find a nice country which works like you like it. Just because you live and work with others does not make you obligated to them or vice versa. Sorry. kropotkinbeard:, or worse yet, that they're somehow entitled to having more. Well, that's just a problem they'll have to grow out of. There will be no "direction of the former" unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It's just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty. I'd really like to know how you can read the history of the 20th century and still be a communist. Communists got their way, in a whole host of countries, and failed utterly. And people like you refuse to take those lessons of history as a refutation of your basic premises. kropotkinbeard:Cooperation is cooperation. This is precisely what most all anarchists/socialists/communists/libertarians wish to do. Top down, hierarchical, authoritarian, structures in which some are bosses and others are taking orders, especially when the former are profiting off the labor of the latter, is simply not condoned. But you would use coercion to stop people who want to willingly engage in that sort of employment from being able to do it. That's the point where you become a tyrant. kropotkinbeard:There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible. Nice utilitarian ethic there, bud. I'd rather a world where each person works to make his own life as good as possible for himself, without bringing down other people either. Such would be a libertarian world. I don't intend to trust my fate even to those who claim to be working for my benefit. The communist party of the Soviet Union used your justification for all their tyrannies and that country was completely screwed over. kropotkinbeard:Yeah, I have no problem at all with people working together. You just said you wouldn't condone someone working willingly for a boss. kropotkinbeard:The notion of "profitting" won't have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like 'has X benefitted society' as a whole. It most definitely would not be 'has X benefitted me'. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it? Lmao, that's exactly what profit does in today's day and age, it benefits everyone. You would destroy profit to achieve what it already achieves, and in the process you would -not- achieve your aim at all. This is the lesson of history when it comes to communism and its foolish denigration of profit. The fact is, profit is production. If you aren't making a profit, you're not producing. The incentives created by profit produce the invisible-hand effect noted by Smith over 200 years ago. There's never been, and there never will be, a better way to coordinate society for everyone's maximum benefit than the price system and profit cannot be removed from that without destroying the benefits thereof. kropotkinbeard:Uhh...What do you think is beneficial? Food, water, medicine, basic necessities, and whatever the people decide they want, and have the ability to create. You're not trying to argue the "Who is to decide what I need, how much, etc...", are you? Well, as long as there are some folks unnecessarily starving or dying from lack of clean drinking water, while others are buying gold dog food bowls which they 'think' they 'need', well, I have no problem deciding, along with the vast majority of people on the planet. Stealing from those with plenty to give to those without would only be ethical if those with plenty had some connection or responsibility for those who are poor being poor. In actual fact there is no connection. But your statement reveals yet another economic fallacy, the idea of wealth being fixed and that if one grows rich they can only do so at the expense of another. This is not accurate. Your theft then would be completely immoral, and actually have the result of creating more poverty and retarding economic growth, because you would punishment wealth acruement, thus punishing investing generally, thus halting society from all economic progress. kropotkinbeard: However, their getting paid is not even close to being an excuse for depriving them of their liberty, which is precisely what it is when one person works fro another to profit off his labor, whether he agrees to it or not. Wage slavery is still slavery, regardless of how folks try and spin it to be some sort of mutually agreed upon trade-off. What liberty exactly is being abridged by working for another. I'm not sure you understand what liberty is by this statement. If the person can leave freely at any time, they remain in a state of liberty. One decent definition of liberty is that it is a state where there is the absence of coercion. There is no coercion in this proposed scenario. One man agrees to work for another and be paid for it. Why does the boss hire the man? Because he can have the man operate his productive capital. Why does the laborer agree to work for the boss, because with the other's productive capital he can be far more productive than by working on his own, and thus earn much more. The boss earns some money above what he pays the laborer, else there would be no point in hiring the laborer (thus, without profit there are also no jobs), and the laborer too profits by taking this jobs because using that productive capital (machines, etc.) he can earn far more than without that productive capital. It's literally win/win for both sides. There's not even a hint of injustice in the entire scenario! Only if the boss prevented the worker from quitting could coercion enter the scenario. In practice this basically never occurs. I've certainly never heard of someone quitting and being forced to remain on the job thereafter. kropotkinbeard:And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed". Communists believe that production is all we need. But they don't understand how productive entities come into existence. We don't need "someone at the top" they say. Then they wonder why, having abolished all bosses, no new factories come into existence. This actually happened in many communist countries. It's hilariously stupid that you're still advocating this stuff while the actual results of it as a policy are well known. The communist governments then went about try to organize factories on a political basis. Howevever, without profit/loss to guide it, the entire economy soon becomes distorted beyond belief, and waste is rampant. A simple look at the economic history of the USSR should by far be enough. kropotkinbeard:"So it would be better if everyone were involved in the day to day decision making of organizations of production?" Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well. He caught you in a trap here. In a capitalist system, everyone -is- involved in the decision making of organization via the price mechanism. Not just the workers, but the purchasers as well, indeed the entire society. kropotkinbeard: This is an old and long debunked argument. Most people, the vast majority, in fact, do not voluntarily enter into any employment whatsoever. A mother raising two children is in no position to enter into anything voluntarily, nor is anyone else. (See link above) Disingenuous argument. No one is forced to work at a job. What you mean is that reality itself forces certain constraints on people, such as the need for food, clothing, and shelter, and therefore they must work? Complain to god I guess. Do you know what people did before the modern economy was invented? They died. kropotkinbeard:A bigger person may get more food than a baby. Fine. Beyond this, I see no reason for someone to, especially if it's taking away from someone else. Who gets to decide? Would they be the ultimate boss? The people who run this society you want? kropotkinbeard:And, no, this would most definitely NOT influence how much effort people put into working. lmao kropotkinbeard:No, there will be no hierarchical relationships. So, you will use force to stop even those hierarchical relationships which individuals enter into willingly? That makes you evil, a violator of the NAP. Btw, even for libertarians, it's not voluntary cooperation or hierarchy which they are against, it's forced cooperation or hierarchy. kropotkinbeard:There will be horizontal relationships. This is perhaps the most complicated concept for many who have indoctrinated since birth that hierarchy is somehow natural, which, even if it were true, but isn't, would be no reason not to change it. You mean like how the father is naturally vertically empowered over his sons and daughters? Funny how that works. kropotkinbeard:The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship. So you would eliminate buying and trading? Because, in every trade, the traders will only willing enter into the trade if they each think they will be better off, ie: profit, after the trade has occurred. Lol, you don't even realize what you're saying. A wage is just a price for labor, a trade of labor for a set price. The employee would rather have a constant income than a variable one, thus placing the risk of profitability on the employer. The employer hires the laborer to make a profit by combining the laborer's work with his own productive capital, like stores, systems, and the like. kropotkinbeard:Capitalism, by it's very nature, creates inequality and hierarchical relations, not to mention all the other negative aspects it has, such as it being incompatible with the environment, etc.... lol! This is rich. kropotkinbeard:Capitalism has nothing to do with voluntary cooperation, and precisely to do with force and exploitation, force, and extortion. LMAO, how can you say this with a straight face??? kropotkinbeard:It's precisely for this reason that so much effort is put into trying to spin things so as to try and frame these things as their opposites. Sacrificing your liberty by allowing someone to profit off your labor simply must be reframed as voluntary agreements, etc...This is at best deceitful and at worst a simply lie. Are you at all familiar with the Khmer Rouge? You would've fit right in there. kropotkinbeard:If I've said "everyone" it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That's too bad for them. Yeah, again, that's mob rule. kropotkinbeard:You are NOT going to get your way all of the time, and not getting it has nothing to do with coercion. If you're on your own land, it certainly does. kropotkinbeard:Also, as a lifelong "lefty", I'm not remotely impressed by the fake libertarians false concern for minorities. Minorities are well aware of who does now, and who have always had their interests at heart, and it has always been democracy and democratic thinkers. This is why the vast majority of every minority has almost always been democratic as well. The minority of the self-proclaimed opulent just don't impress me, nor do I really care what they want or think. lol, rich stuff man, like political comedy almost. kropotkinbeard:They'll have to act like adults and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide. Sure they are, they're being coerced by the 51%. It's laughable of you to claim you and "other lefties" understand coercion, yet to make idiotic statements like this. kropotkinbeard:What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it. Wouldn't impinge on your freedom at all, actually, quite the opposite. really makes me wonder how you define freedoms. kropotkinbeard:"Isn`t that what minarchism is about, i.e. make sure that people don`t do whatever they want if it harms others?" This is a good aspect of it, yes. It will still need to be democratically decided what constitutes "harm". Nah, could be individually decided just as easily. kropotkinbeard:If a person is hoarding something because, perhaps, they feel they've earned it, while someone else is harmed by not having it, then the hoarder should be dealt with in whatever way the free people also decide. Lol, I suppose you'll tell me this isn't "mob rule" either? It's practically the definition. How foolish. kropotkinbeard:Similarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace How so? I don't think you know what a right is. kropotkinbeard:without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has. What about your right not to have an idiot going on a stabbing rampage " ", is the ownership of knives infringing your right :P kropotkinbeard:"Why would anyone blame the state in a anarchist society, and who would ban guns in an anarchy?" There is no "the state" in an anarchist society. And hopefully the free rational people would decide to get rid of guns, at least for personal use. But then again many anarchists would probably wish to keep some sort of defense to fend off those who would attempt to re-create hierarchical structures again, and who have much less problem with resorting to force, as most of history shows. Would you force people to not have guns? kropotkinbeard: "But won`t that which the collective decides be some form of central planning?" Not if under the control of the people. This is what happened in the USSR, which was anti-socialist. lmao! So you're one of those socialists, the "it hasn't been tried right yet" socialist, LOL. kropotkinbeard:The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. If we're talking majority rule, then majority rule always makes legal the substitution of the majority's decisions for the will of the minority, which is prima fascie force / coercion / aggression, whatever you want to use. Under a pure democracy, majority rule makes legal all sorts of aggressions. In fact, under majority rule, the majority can order someone killed without trial or anything. Which is essentially what happened to Socrates, btw. kropotkinbeard:It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies. You are then utterly ignorant of the history of democracy o_O kropotkinbeard:This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. LOL kropotkinbeard:In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom. I'm not really surprised that a socialist is for democracy. Democracy, that is majority rule, is predicated on the assumption that the group is the primary, the important unit of society and should rule over the individual. But I'm going to destroy democracy by creating a political system predicated on individualism, where the individual is the primary unit of society, where democracy will be rightly considered the tyranny that it is. kropotkinbeard:Of course. I have said nothing regarding having central planning as a system, nor is there any necessary relation between this and the majority. Every time you've spoken of force or democracy (implicitly representative democracy), you've implied a centralization of power to enforce these socialist ideals. The idea that the economy shouldn't operate by profit by for the needs of all? Who decides what the needs of all is? There's your bureacracy. The idea that vertical organization won't be condoned? Who will prevent it? There's your central planning. The idea that a large man will get more for his work efforts but certainly not 10 times more than a baby or a widow, who decides how much he will get? There's you statist tyranny. Absent pure voluntaryism--which would in fact create a laissez faire capitalist economy, the only way your ideals can be put into practice is by coercion. The beauty of actual libertarianism is that it can be implemented as a purely voluntary society, without even the need for everyone to be some intellectual socialist. Libertarianism is what people would naturally do already, absent the state to screw with things. Unlike socialism which, when tried in practice, had to be forced on everyone, and because of that always resulted in a police state. kropotkinbeard: No, why? There are no special interest groups in a society where people are working for the society and the people who live in it. In fact, it's the opposite. Lol, well, thanks for the laughs. I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, a socialist who got everything they wanted in the 20th century and produced nothing by failure, murder, and death. Somehow you've got to rationalize all of that away as not actually being the product of your ideas. You've succeeded at this self-deception far, far more than most. I applaud you for your consistency, even if you're at best only consistently-wrong. Deliciously so even. Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling. | Post Points: 5
There is no such thing as "mob rule", nor would it be hierarchical even if it existed.
The term 'mob' implies the use of aggression by a group again a minority (ie: rioters attacking store-owners, etc.).
Democracy is the use of force by a group against the minority. It is not direct force, not physical, but rather indirect, legal.
Calling democracy "mob rule" certainly has derrogatory emphatic connotations, but it is nonetheless accurate.
kropotkinbeard:It's possible to choose to be a slave, yes.
It's not possible to choose to be a slave, actually. Slavery requires force to make a slave, by definition. Were one to agree to enter's another service voluntarily (this would not be slavery at all), one could also then leave at any time and choose not to associate with the other. Should the other prevent this, they have now made you a slave and have used coercion to prevent your leaving their association. At that moment, you are a slave, and it is against your will.
kropotkinbeard:And there's nothing remotely efficient about capitalism, not that efficiency really matters that much anyway.
So laughably incorrect that it's hardly worth responding to. Here, read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." You're welcome.
What you mean is capitalism doesn't achieve your egalitarian goals. Only force can achieve them.
You're simply equivocating on the meaning of 'efficient' here, as your final sentence indicates clearly.
A laissez-faire economic system results in the maximum wealth and goods production of all possible schemes of economic organization. That is the sense in which it is most efficient.
It also results in the best distribution of all possible methods, and the most amount of justice, where justice is defined as those whom do the most valuable work receive the most remuneration. It is social injustice to take from the most productive and give to the least productive for the mere fact of being least productive.
But as we all know, the least productive are much larger in number, and can overwhelm the most productive when it comes to politics via their much larger voting bloc. Thus, democracy's injustice is made plain, that the masses can vote themselves largesse out of the pockets of the most productive, legally--but NEVER morally.
Completely ignorant of history. Go back to the histories of Greece and look at the very real breakdowns of every political order which was a true democracy. They devolved to tyranny, but after the majority took from the minority. No clue how you got any other way into your mind.
kropotkinbeard: Yes, logically this would be possible. However, in the real world, and especially within even the moderately democratic systems which have existed, there has never been a majority tyrannizing a minority. In fact, without exception to my knowledge, it's always been a tyranny of the minority. Define in real terms this 'tyranny of the minority' you speak of. What are you referring to? I expect it will be something stupid like business owners "tyrannizing" workers or the like. You have no idea that tyranny is not possible between voluntary relations. A business owner cannot tyrannize anyone. kropotkinbeard:There may be one. And I'm not remotely interested in protecting the minority of wealth, power and privilege which is the bane of the world. Uh huh. There you go. Silliness. kropotkinbeard:It IS, however, amazing to see folks unwittingly propagating their ideas at least several thousand years after the earliest known recording of it occurring. Lol, it is the socialists advocating tribalism, not the reverse. kropotkinbeard:Firstly, those whom you are saying "provide the ideas/knowhow/machines...." seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others. What do you mean by exploitation? Is it exploiting the green grocer to buy his produce? If not, how could it be exploitation to buy anyone's labor for any purpose? Rather, what you mean is that you believe in the communist labor theory of value and marx's silly idea that 'one dollar of profit is an unpaid wage.' You don't allow that there is any value in management or distribution. All of which are complete illusions, believed by the economically ignorant. kropotkinbeard:It isn't, as long as these things weren't gotten without the exploitation of others, say, by having someone do the work for them. Listen, this would only be "exploitation" if you didn't pay them to do the work. kropotkinbeard:In fact, I'm all for it as long as all of these things are owned by the people for the betterment of people, and not simply for profit. You're like a parody of a socialist. I can't believe anyone still says these things, so discredited are they. We're talking decades ago. kropotkinbeard:If they built it using their own hands, then, perhaps, it's debatable. Depends on what the population of free people decide. And here you see the socialist ethic at work, the tyranny of the majority. No one person owns anything, he believes, unless the others around him allow him to have it. kropotkinbeard:You as an individual do not live in a vacuum. You live and most likely will live in proximity to other people. Therefore, you are going to have to work with others. Sorry. There are other choices. Shoot yourself. Move away and be by yourself. Find a nice country which works like you like it. Just because you live and work with others does not make you obligated to them or vice versa. Sorry. kropotkinbeard:, or worse yet, that they're somehow entitled to having more. Well, that's just a problem they'll have to grow out of. There will be no "direction of the former" unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It's just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty. I'd really like to know how you can read the history of the 20th century and still be a communist. Communists got their way, in a whole host of countries, and failed utterly. And people like you refuse to take those lessons of history as a refutation of your basic premises. kropotkinbeard:Cooperation is cooperation. This is precisely what most all anarchists/socialists/communists/libertarians wish to do. Top down, hierarchical, authoritarian, structures in which some are bosses and others are taking orders, especially when the former are profiting off the labor of the latter, is simply not condoned. But you would use coercion to stop people who want to willingly engage in that sort of employment from being able to do it. That's the point where you become a tyrant. kropotkinbeard:There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible. Nice utilitarian ethic there, bud. I'd rather a world where each person works to make his own life as good as possible for himself, without bringing down other people either. Such would be a libertarian world. I don't intend to trust my fate even to those who claim to be working for my benefit. The communist party of the Soviet Union used your justification for all their tyrannies and that country was completely screwed over. kropotkinbeard:Yeah, I have no problem at all with people working together. You just said you wouldn't condone someone working willingly for a boss. kropotkinbeard:The notion of "profitting" won't have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like 'has X benefitted society' as a whole. It most definitely would not be 'has X benefitted me'. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it? Lmao, that's exactly what profit does in today's day and age, it benefits everyone. You would destroy profit to achieve what it already achieves, and in the process you would -not- achieve your aim at all. This is the lesson of history when it comes to communism and its foolish denigration of profit. The fact is, profit is production. If you aren't making a profit, you're not producing. The incentives created by profit produce the invisible-hand effect noted by Smith over 200 years ago. There's never been, and there never will be, a better way to coordinate society for everyone's maximum benefit than the price system and profit cannot be removed from that without destroying the benefits thereof. kropotkinbeard:Uhh...What do you think is beneficial? Food, water, medicine, basic necessities, and whatever the people decide they want, and have the ability to create. You're not trying to argue the "Who is to decide what I need, how much, etc...", are you? Well, as long as there are some folks unnecessarily starving or dying from lack of clean drinking water, while others are buying gold dog food bowls which they 'think' they 'need', well, I have no problem deciding, along with the vast majority of people on the planet. Stealing from those with plenty to give to those without would only be ethical if those with plenty had some connection or responsibility for those who are poor being poor. In actual fact there is no connection. But your statement reveals yet another economic fallacy, the idea of wealth being fixed and that if one grows rich they can only do so at the expense of another. This is not accurate. Your theft then would be completely immoral, and actually have the result of creating more poverty and retarding economic growth, because you would punishment wealth acruement, thus punishing investing generally, thus halting society from all economic progress. kropotkinbeard: However, their getting paid is not even close to being an excuse for depriving them of their liberty, which is precisely what it is when one person works fro another to profit off his labor, whether he agrees to it or not. Wage slavery is still slavery, regardless of how folks try and spin it to be some sort of mutually agreed upon trade-off. What liberty exactly is being abridged by working for another. I'm not sure you understand what liberty is by this statement. If the person can leave freely at any time, they remain in a state of liberty. One decent definition of liberty is that it is a state where there is the absence of coercion. There is no coercion in this proposed scenario. One man agrees to work for another and be paid for it. Why does the boss hire the man? Because he can have the man operate his productive capital. Why does the laborer agree to work for the boss, because with the other's productive capital he can be far more productive than by working on his own, and thus earn much more. The boss earns some money above what he pays the laborer, else there would be no point in hiring the laborer (thus, without profit there are also no jobs), and the laborer too profits by taking this jobs because using that productive capital (machines, etc.) he can earn far more than without that productive capital. It's literally win/win for both sides. There's not even a hint of injustice in the entire scenario! Only if the boss prevented the worker from quitting could coercion enter the scenario. In practice this basically never occurs. I've certainly never heard of someone quitting and being forced to remain on the job thereafter. kropotkinbeard:And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed". Communists believe that production is all we need. But they don't understand how productive entities come into existence. We don't need "someone at the top" they say. Then they wonder why, having abolished all bosses, no new factories come into existence. This actually happened in many communist countries. It's hilariously stupid that you're still advocating this stuff while the actual results of it as a policy are well known. The communist governments then went about try to organize factories on a political basis. Howevever, without profit/loss to guide it, the entire economy soon becomes distorted beyond belief, and waste is rampant. A simple look at the economic history of the USSR should by far be enough. kropotkinbeard:"So it would be better if everyone were involved in the day to day decision making of organizations of production?" Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well. He caught you in a trap here. In a capitalist system, everyone -is- involved in the decision making of organization via the price mechanism. Not just the workers, but the purchasers as well, indeed the entire society. kropotkinbeard: This is an old and long debunked argument. Most people, the vast majority, in fact, do not voluntarily enter into any employment whatsoever. A mother raising two children is in no position to enter into anything voluntarily, nor is anyone else. (See link above) Disingenuous argument. No one is forced to work at a job. What you mean is that reality itself forces certain constraints on people, such as the need for food, clothing, and shelter, and therefore they must work? Complain to god I guess. Do you know what people did before the modern economy was invented? They died. kropotkinbeard:A bigger person may get more food than a baby. Fine. Beyond this, I see no reason for someone to, especially if it's taking away from someone else. Who gets to decide? Would they be the ultimate boss? The people who run this society you want? kropotkinbeard:And, no, this would most definitely NOT influence how much effort people put into working. lmao kropotkinbeard:No, there will be no hierarchical relationships. So, you will use force to stop even those hierarchical relationships which individuals enter into willingly? That makes you evil, a violator of the NAP. Btw, even for libertarians, it's not voluntary cooperation or hierarchy which they are against, it's forced cooperation or hierarchy. kropotkinbeard:There will be horizontal relationships. This is perhaps the most complicated concept for many who have indoctrinated since birth that hierarchy is somehow natural, which, even if it were true, but isn't, would be no reason not to change it. You mean like how the father is naturally vertically empowered over his sons and daughters? Funny how that works. kropotkinbeard:The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship. So you would eliminate buying and trading? Because, in every trade, the traders will only willing enter into the trade if they each think they will be better off, ie: profit, after the trade has occurred. Lol, you don't even realize what you're saying. A wage is just a price for labor, a trade of labor for a set price. The employee would rather have a constant income than a variable one, thus placing the risk of profitability on the employer. The employer hires the laborer to make a profit by combining the laborer's work with his own productive capital, like stores, systems, and the like. kropotkinbeard:Capitalism, by it's very nature, creates inequality and hierarchical relations, not to mention all the other negative aspects it has, such as it being incompatible with the environment, etc.... lol! This is rich. kropotkinbeard:Capitalism has nothing to do with voluntary cooperation, and precisely to do with force and exploitation, force, and extortion. LMAO, how can you say this with a straight face??? kropotkinbeard:It's precisely for this reason that so much effort is put into trying to spin things so as to try and frame these things as their opposites. Sacrificing your liberty by allowing someone to profit off your labor simply must be reframed as voluntary agreements, etc...This is at best deceitful and at worst a simply lie. Are you at all familiar with the Khmer Rouge? You would've fit right in there. kropotkinbeard:If I've said "everyone" it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That's too bad for them. Yeah, again, that's mob rule. kropotkinbeard:You are NOT going to get your way all of the time, and not getting it has nothing to do with coercion. If you're on your own land, it certainly does. kropotkinbeard:Also, as a lifelong "lefty", I'm not remotely impressed by the fake libertarians false concern for minorities. Minorities are well aware of who does now, and who have always had their interests at heart, and it has always been democracy and democratic thinkers. This is why the vast majority of every minority has almost always been democratic as well. The minority of the self-proclaimed opulent just don't impress me, nor do I really care what they want or think. lol, rich stuff man, like political comedy almost. kropotkinbeard:They'll have to act like adults and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide. Sure they are, they're being coerced by the 51%. It's laughable of you to claim you and "other lefties" understand coercion, yet to make idiotic statements like this. kropotkinbeard:What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it. Wouldn't impinge on your freedom at all, actually, quite the opposite. really makes me wonder how you define freedoms. kropotkinbeard:"Isn`t that what minarchism is about, i.e. make sure that people don`t do whatever they want if it harms others?" This is a good aspect of it, yes. It will still need to be democratically decided what constitutes "harm". Nah, could be individually decided just as easily. kropotkinbeard:If a person is hoarding something because, perhaps, they feel they've earned it, while someone else is harmed by not having it, then the hoarder should be dealt with in whatever way the free people also decide. Lol, I suppose you'll tell me this isn't "mob rule" either? It's practically the definition. How foolish. kropotkinbeard:Similarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace How so? I don't think you know what a right is. kropotkinbeard:without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has. What about your right not to have an idiot going on a stabbing rampage " ", is the ownership of knives infringing your right :P kropotkinbeard:"Why would anyone blame the state in a anarchist society, and who would ban guns in an anarchy?" There is no "the state" in an anarchist society. And hopefully the free rational people would decide to get rid of guns, at least for personal use. But then again many anarchists would probably wish to keep some sort of defense to fend off those who would attempt to re-create hierarchical structures again, and who have much less problem with resorting to force, as most of history shows. Would you force people to not have guns? kropotkinbeard: "But won`t that which the collective decides be some form of central planning?" Not if under the control of the people. This is what happened in the USSR, which was anti-socialist. lmao! So you're one of those socialists, the "it hasn't been tried right yet" socialist, LOL. kropotkinbeard:The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. If we're talking majority rule, then majority rule always makes legal the substitution of the majority's decisions for the will of the minority, which is prima fascie force / coercion / aggression, whatever you want to use. Under a pure democracy, majority rule makes legal all sorts of aggressions. In fact, under majority rule, the majority can order someone killed without trial or anything. Which is essentially what happened to Socrates, btw. kropotkinbeard:It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies. You are then utterly ignorant of the history of democracy o_O kropotkinbeard:This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. LOL kropotkinbeard:In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom. I'm not really surprised that a socialist is for democracy. Democracy, that is majority rule, is predicated on the assumption that the group is the primary, the important unit of society and should rule over the individual. But I'm going to destroy democracy by creating a political system predicated on individualism, where the individual is the primary unit of society, where democracy will be rightly considered the tyranny that it is. kropotkinbeard:Of course. I have said nothing regarding having central planning as a system, nor is there any necessary relation between this and the majority. Every time you've spoken of force or democracy (implicitly representative democracy), you've implied a centralization of power to enforce these socialist ideals. The idea that the economy shouldn't operate by profit by for the needs of all? Who decides what the needs of all is? There's your bureacracy. The idea that vertical organization won't be condoned? Who will prevent it? There's your central planning. The idea that a large man will get more for his work efforts but certainly not 10 times more than a baby or a widow, who decides how much he will get? There's you statist tyranny. Absent pure voluntaryism--which would in fact create a laissez faire capitalist economy, the only way your ideals can be put into practice is by coercion. The beauty of actual libertarianism is that it can be implemented as a purely voluntary society, without even the need for everyone to be some intellectual socialist. Libertarianism is what people would naturally do already, absent the state to screw with things. Unlike socialism which, when tried in practice, had to be forced on everyone, and because of that always resulted in a police state. kropotkinbeard: No, why? There are no special interest groups in a society where people are working for the society and the people who live in it. In fact, it's the opposite. Lol, well, thanks for the laughs. I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, a socialist who got everything they wanted in the 20th century and produced nothing by failure, murder, and death. Somehow you've got to rationalize all of that away as not actually being the product of your ideas. You've succeeded at this self-deception far, far more than most. I applaud you for your consistency, even if you're at best only consistently-wrong. Deliciously so even. Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling. | Post Points: 5
Yes, logically this would be possible. However, in the real world, and especially within even the moderately democratic systems which have existed, there has never been a majority tyrannizing a minority. In fact, without exception to my knowledge, it's always been a tyranny of the minority.
Define in real terms this 'tyranny of the minority' you speak of. What are you referring to?
I expect it will be something stupid like business owners "tyrannizing" workers or the like. You have no idea that tyranny is not possible between voluntary relations. A business owner cannot tyrannize anyone.
kropotkinbeard:There may be one. And I'm not remotely interested in protecting the minority of wealth, power and privilege which is the bane of the world.
Uh huh. There you go. Silliness.
kropotkinbeard:It IS, however, amazing to see folks unwittingly propagating their ideas at least several thousand years after the earliest known recording of it occurring.
Lol, it is the socialists advocating tribalism, not the reverse.
What do you mean by exploitation? Is it exploiting the green grocer to buy his produce? If not, how could it be exploitation to buy anyone's labor for any purpose?
Rather, what you mean is that you believe in the communist labor theory of value and marx's silly idea that 'one dollar of profit is an unpaid wage.' You don't allow that there is any value in management or distribution. All of which are complete illusions, believed by the economically ignorant.
kropotkinbeard:It isn't, as long as these things weren't gotten without the exploitation of others, say, by having someone do the work for them.
Listen, this would only be "exploitation" if you didn't pay them to do the work.
kropotkinbeard:In fact, I'm all for it as long as all of these things are owned by the people for the betterment of people, and not simply for profit.
You're like a parody of a socialist. I can't believe anyone still says these things, so discredited are they. We're talking decades ago.
And here you see the socialist ethic at work, the tyranny of the majority. No one person owns anything, he believes, unless the others around him allow him to have it.
kropotkinbeard:You as an individual do not live in a vacuum. You live and most likely will live in proximity to other people. Therefore, you are going to have to work with others. Sorry. There are other choices. Shoot yourself. Move away and be by yourself. Find a nice country which works like you like it.
Just because you live and work with others does not make you obligated to them or vice versa. Sorry.
I'd really like to know how you can read the history of the 20th century and still be a communist. Communists got their way, in a whole host of countries, and failed utterly.
And people like you refuse to take those lessons of history as a refutation of your basic premises.
kropotkinbeard:Cooperation is cooperation. This is precisely what most all anarchists/socialists/communists/libertarians wish to do. Top down, hierarchical, authoritarian, structures in which some are bosses and others are taking orders, especially when the former are profiting off the labor of the latter, is simply not condoned.
But you would use coercion to stop people who want to willingly engage in that sort of employment from being able to do it. That's the point where you become a tyrant.
kropotkinbeard:There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible.
Nice utilitarian ethic there, bud.
I'd rather a world where each person works to make his own life as good as possible for himself, without bringing down other people either. Such would be a libertarian world.
I don't intend to trust my fate even to those who claim to be working for my benefit. The communist party of the Soviet Union used your justification for all their tyrannies and that country was completely screwed over.
kropotkinbeard:Yeah, I have no problem at all with people working together.
You just said you wouldn't condone someone working willingly for a boss.
Lmao, that's exactly what profit does in today's day and age, it benefits everyone. You would destroy profit to achieve what it already achieves, and in the process you would -not- achieve your aim at all. This is the lesson of history when it comes to communism and its foolish denigration of profit.
The fact is, profit is production. If you aren't making a profit, you're not producing. The incentives created by profit produce the invisible-hand effect noted by Smith over 200 years ago. There's never been, and there never will be, a better way to coordinate society for everyone's maximum benefit than the price system and profit cannot be removed from that without destroying the benefits thereof.
kropotkinbeard:Uhh...What do you think is beneficial? Food, water, medicine, basic necessities, and whatever the people decide they want, and have the ability to create. You're not trying to argue the "Who is to decide what I need, how much, etc...", are you? Well, as long as there are some folks unnecessarily starving or dying from lack of clean drinking water, while others are buying gold dog food bowls which they 'think' they 'need', well, I have no problem deciding, along with the vast majority of people on the planet.
Stealing from those with plenty to give to those without would only be ethical if those with plenty had some connection or responsibility for those who are poor being poor.
In actual fact there is no connection.
But your statement reveals yet another economic fallacy, the idea of wealth being fixed and that if one grows rich they can only do so at the expense of another. This is not accurate. Your theft then would be completely immoral, and actually have the result of creating more poverty and retarding economic growth, because you would punishment wealth acruement, thus punishing investing generally, thus halting society from all economic progress.
kropotkinbeard: However, their getting paid is not even close to being an excuse for depriving them of their liberty, which is precisely what it is when one person works fro another to profit off his labor, whether he agrees to it or not. Wage slavery is still slavery, regardless of how folks try and spin it to be some sort of mutually agreed upon trade-off. What liberty exactly is being abridged by working for another. I'm not sure you understand what liberty is by this statement. If the person can leave freely at any time, they remain in a state of liberty. One decent definition of liberty is that it is a state where there is the absence of coercion. There is no coercion in this proposed scenario. One man agrees to work for another and be paid for it. Why does the boss hire the man? Because he can have the man operate his productive capital. Why does the laborer agree to work for the boss, because with the other's productive capital he can be far more productive than by working on his own, and thus earn much more. The boss earns some money above what he pays the laborer, else there would be no point in hiring the laborer (thus, without profit there are also no jobs), and the laborer too profits by taking this jobs because using that productive capital (machines, etc.) he can earn far more than without that productive capital. It's literally win/win for both sides. There's not even a hint of injustice in the entire scenario! Only if the boss prevented the worker from quitting could coercion enter the scenario. In practice this basically never occurs. I've certainly never heard of someone quitting and being forced to remain on the job thereafter. kropotkinbeard:And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not "needed". Communists believe that production is all we need. But they don't understand how productive entities come into existence. We don't need "someone at the top" they say. Then they wonder why, having abolished all bosses, no new factories come into existence. This actually happened in many communist countries. It's hilariously stupid that you're still advocating this stuff while the actual results of it as a policy are well known. The communist governments then went about try to organize factories on a political basis. Howevever, without profit/loss to guide it, the entire economy soon becomes distorted beyond belief, and waste is rampant. A simple look at the economic history of the USSR should by far be enough. kropotkinbeard:"So it would be better if everyone were involved in the day to day decision making of organizations of production?" Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well.
However, their getting paid is not even close to being an excuse for depriving them of their liberty, which is precisely what it is when one person works fro another to profit off his labor, whether he agrees to it or not. Wage slavery is still slavery, regardless of how folks try and spin it to be some sort of mutually agreed upon trade-off.
What liberty exactly is being abridged by working for another. I'm not sure you understand what liberty is by this statement. If the person can leave freely at any time, they remain in a state of liberty.
One decent definition of liberty is that it is a state where there is the absence of coercion. There is no coercion in this proposed scenario. One man agrees to work for another and be paid for it. Why does the boss hire the man? Because he can have the man operate his productive capital. Why does the laborer agree to work for the boss, because with the other's productive capital he can be far more productive than by working on his own, and thus earn much more. The boss earns some money above what he pays the laborer, else there would be no point in hiring the laborer (thus, without profit there are also no jobs), and the laborer too profits by taking this jobs because using that productive capital (machines, etc.) he can earn far more than without that productive capital.
It's literally win/win for both sides. There's not even a hint of injustice in the entire scenario!
Only if the boss prevented the worker from quitting could coercion enter the scenario. In practice this basically never occurs. I've certainly never heard of someone quitting and being forced to remain on the job thereafter.
Communists believe that production is all we need.
But they don't understand how productive entities come into existence. We don't need "someone at the top" they say.
Then they wonder why, having abolished all bosses, no new factories come into existence.
This actually happened in many communist countries. It's hilariously stupid that you're still advocating this stuff while the actual results of it as a policy are well known.
The communist governments then went about try to organize factories on a political basis.
Howevever, without profit/loss to guide it, the entire economy soon becomes distorted beyond belief, and waste is rampant. A simple look at the economic history of the USSR should by far be enough.
kropotkinbeard:"So it would be better if everyone were involved in the day to day decision making of organizations of production?" Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well.
Of course it would. It's much more efficient as most all studies show as well.
He caught you in a trap here. In a capitalist system, everyone -is- involved in the decision making of organization via the price mechanism. Not just the workers, but the purchasers as well, indeed the entire society.
kropotkinbeard: This is an old and long debunked argument. Most people, the vast majority, in fact, do not voluntarily enter into any employment whatsoever. A mother raising two children is in no position to enter into anything voluntarily, nor is anyone else. (See link above)
Disingenuous argument. No one is forced to work at a job. What you mean is that reality itself forces certain constraints on people, such as the need for food, clothing, and shelter, and therefore they must work? Complain to god I guess.
Do you know what people did before the modern economy was invented?
They died.
kropotkinbeard:A bigger person may get more food than a baby. Fine. Beyond this, I see no reason for someone to, especially if it's taking away from someone else.
Who gets to decide? Would they be the ultimate boss? The people who run this society you want?
kropotkinbeard:And, no, this would most definitely NOT influence how much effort people put into working.
lmao
kropotkinbeard:No, there will be no hierarchical relationships.
So, you will use force to stop even those hierarchical relationships which individuals enter into willingly? That makes you evil, a violator of the NAP.
Btw, even for libertarians, it's not voluntary cooperation or hierarchy which they are against, it's forced cooperation or hierarchy.
kropotkinbeard:There will be horizontal relationships. This is perhaps the most complicated concept for many who have indoctrinated since birth that hierarchy is somehow natural, which, even if it were true, but isn't, would be no reason not to change it.
You mean like how the father is naturally vertically empowered over his sons and daughters? Funny how that works.
kropotkinbeard:The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship.
So you would eliminate buying and trading?
Because, in every trade, the traders will only willing enter into the trade if they each think they will be better off, ie: profit, after the trade has occurred.
Lol, you don't even realize what you're saying.
A wage is just a price for labor, a trade of labor for a set price. The employee would rather have a constant income than a variable one, thus placing the risk of profitability on the employer.
The employer hires the laborer to make a profit by combining the laborer's work with his own productive capital, like stores, systems, and the like.
kropotkinbeard:Capitalism, by it's very nature, creates inequality and hierarchical relations, not to mention all the other negative aspects it has, such as it being incompatible with the environment, etc....
lol! This is rich.
kropotkinbeard:Capitalism has nothing to do with voluntary cooperation, and precisely to do with force and exploitation, force, and extortion.
LMAO, how can you say this with a straight face???
kropotkinbeard:It's precisely for this reason that so much effort is put into trying to spin things so as to try and frame these things as their opposites. Sacrificing your liberty by allowing someone to profit off your labor simply must be reframed as voluntary agreements, etc...This is at best deceitful and at worst a simply lie.
Are you at all familiar with the Khmer Rouge? You would've fit right in there.
Yeah, again, that's mob rule.
If you're on your own land, it certainly does.
kropotkinbeard:Also, as a lifelong "lefty", I'm not remotely impressed by the fake libertarians false concern for minorities. Minorities are well aware of who does now, and who have always had their interests at heart, and it has always been democracy and democratic thinkers. This is why the vast majority of every minority has almost always been democratic as well. The minority of the self-proclaimed opulent just don't impress me, nor do I really care what they want or think.
lol, rich stuff man, like political comedy almost.
kropotkinbeard:They'll have to act like adults and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being "coerced", nor having "force" used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide.
Sure they are, they're being coerced by the 51%. It's laughable of you to claim you and "other lefties" understand coercion, yet to make idiotic statements like this.
kropotkinbeard:What's really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I'd be against it.
Wouldn't impinge on your freedom at all, actually, quite the opposite. really makes me wonder how you define freedoms.
kropotkinbeard:"Isn`t that what minarchism is about, i.e. make sure that people don`t do whatever they want if it harms others?" This is a good aspect of it, yes. It will still need to be democratically decided what constitutes "harm".
This is a good aspect of it, yes. It will still need to be democratically decided what constitutes "harm".
Nah, could be individually decided just as easily.
kropotkinbeard:If a person is hoarding something because, perhaps, they feel they've earned it, while someone else is harmed by not having it, then the hoarder should be dealt with in whatever way the free people also decide.
Lol, I suppose you'll tell me this isn't "mob rule" either? It's practically the definition. How foolish.
kropotkinbeard:Similarly, personally I'd be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace
How so? I don't think you know what a right is.
kropotkinbeard:without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames "the state" for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has.
What about your right not to have an idiot going on a stabbing rampage " ", is the ownership of knives infringing your right :P
kropotkinbeard:"Why would anyone blame the state in a anarchist society, and who would ban guns in an anarchy?" There is no "the state" in an anarchist society. And hopefully the free rational people would decide to get rid of guns, at least for personal use. But then again many anarchists would probably wish to keep some sort of defense to fend off those who would attempt to re-create hierarchical structures again, and who have much less problem with resorting to force, as most of history shows.
There is no "the state" in an anarchist society. And hopefully the free rational people would decide to get rid of guns, at least for personal use. But then again many anarchists would probably wish to keep some sort of defense to fend off those who would attempt to re-create hierarchical structures again, and who have much less problem with resorting to force, as most of history shows.
Would you force people to not have guns?
kropotkinbeard: "But won`t that which the collective decides be some form of central planning?" Not if under the control of the people. This is what happened in the USSR, which was anti-socialist.
"But won`t that which the collective decides be some form of central planning?" Not if under the control of the people. This is what happened in the USSR, which was anti-socialist.
lmao! So you're one of those socialists, the "it hasn't been tried right yet" socialist, LOL.
kropotkinbeard:The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition.
If we're talking majority rule, then majority rule always makes legal the substitution of the majority's decisions for the will of the minority, which is prima fascie force / coercion / aggression, whatever you want to use. Under a pure democracy, majority rule makes legal all sorts of aggressions. In fact, under majority rule, the majority can order someone killed without trial or anything. Which is essentially what happened to Socrates, btw.
kropotkinbeard:It's never been in history that I'm aware of in any democratic societies.
You are then utterly ignorant of the history of democracy o_O
kropotkinbeard:This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is.
LOL
kropotkinbeard:In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what's best, and being that they're absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps 'THE' best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you're willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I'd simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom.
I'm not really surprised that a socialist is for democracy. Democracy, that is majority rule, is predicated on the assumption that the group is the primary, the important unit of society and should rule over the individual.
But I'm going to destroy democracy by creating a political system predicated on individualism, where the individual is the primary unit of society, where democracy will be rightly considered the tyranny that it is.
Every time you've spoken of force or democracy (implicitly representative democracy), you've implied a centralization of power to enforce these socialist ideals. The idea that the economy shouldn't operate by profit by for the needs of all? Who decides what the needs of all is? There's your bureacracy.
The idea that vertical organization won't be condoned? Who will prevent it? There's your central planning.
The idea that a large man will get more for his work efforts but certainly not 10 times more than a baby or a widow, who decides how much he will get? There's you statist tyranny.
Absent pure voluntaryism--which would in fact create a laissez faire capitalist economy, the only way your ideals can be put into practice is by coercion.
The beauty of actual libertarianism is that it can be implemented as a purely voluntary society, without even the need for everyone to be some intellectual socialist. Libertarianism is what people would naturally do already, absent the state to screw with things. Unlike socialism which, when tried in practice, had to be forced on everyone, and because of that always resulted in a police state.
kropotkinbeard: No, why? There are no special interest groups in a society where people are working for the society and the people who live in it. In fact, it's the opposite.
Lol, well, thanks for the laughs. I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, a socialist who got everything they wanted in the 20th century and produced nothing by failure, murder, and death. Somehow you've got to rationalize all of that away as not actually being the product of your ideas.
You've succeeded at this self-deception far, far more than most. I applaud you for your consistency, even if you're at best only consistently-wrong. Deliciously so even.