@ Joe
There is abandonment within the Rothbardian framework. He discusses it in chapter 2.12 of MES, and chapter 10 and 14 of The Ethics of Liberty. I believe Block expands on it in his analysis of children's rights and Kinsella borrows the concept to justify the title transfer theory of contracts.
Scott F.: "that they would tend to form in more co-operative ways. no one knows here; you could be right, and it wouldn't take anything away from the most deeply held tenets of ancap." I see no reason why this wouldn't be true.Your right this takes nothing away from much of an-cap yet an-cap seems to imply this wouldn't happen/ignores it. "could it perhaps all come down to a difference in predictions of what would happen without a state?" To some extent yet there's more to it than that. "the rightists saying hierarchically organized companies would be the main providers and the leftists saying grassroots co-ops and the like would be the main providers." That's a somewhat good assessment but like I say left-libs start from a completely different place,hold some different even opposed values,have a slightly different worldview,and have a much broader scope of concerns (thickism) compared to an-cap thinness.
"that they would tend to form in more co-operative ways. no one knows here; you could be right, and it wouldn't take anything away from the most deeply held tenets of ancap."
I see no reason why this wouldn't be true.Your right this takes nothing away from much of an-cap yet an-cap seems to imply this wouldn't happen/ignores it.
"could it perhaps all come down to a difference in predictions of what would happen without a state?"
To some extent yet there's more to it than that.
"the rightists saying hierarchically organized companies would be the main providers and the leftists saying grassroots co-ops and the like would be the main providers."
That's a somewhat good assessment but like I say left-libs start from a completely different place,hold some different even opposed values,have a slightly different worldview,and have a much broader scope of concerns (thickism) compared to an-cap thinness.
now we are getting somewhere.
and isn't that last point just a difference in where one draws the boundary between one's political and personal values? if so, that is just a matter of naming conventions.
liberty student: Joe:Isn't property abandonment part of AnCap theory. I don't believe it specifically is because ... Joe:Pretty sure I heard Lew Rockwell give a lecture on it once. Something like 20 years before it is available to homestead again, could have been 7, I really can't remember. That would be pretty arbitrary. Time is a poor measure of rights. Joe:Either way it seems like the difference between the two ideas is more on the focus and wording, than on being so different in kind. I do find their wording to be very strange. There is a mutualist on the FSP forum and he comes up with the craziest replies that just make me say, "how the hell did you even think that?" There are quite a few left-libertarians and mutualists, who don't think that property is currently owned by the right people, and advocate people in factories taking over the factories and throwing out management/owners, as the workers using a machine have a higher claim to it than the people (or their agents) who invested or attracted the capital to purchase that machine. They aren't worried about cabins that have not been in use for 20 years. They want to take stuff with fairly clear title (because they don't believe the titles can ever be legit) right now. It's crazy stuff.
Joe:Isn't property abandonment part of AnCap theory.
I don't believe it specifically is because ...
Joe:Pretty sure I heard Lew Rockwell give a lecture on it once. Something like 20 years before it is available to homestead again, could have been 7, I really can't remember.
That would be pretty arbitrary. Time is a poor measure of rights.
Joe:Either way it seems like the difference between the two ideas is more on the focus and wording, than on being so different in kind. I do find their wording to be very strange. There is a mutualist on the FSP forum and he comes up with the craziest replies that just make me say, "how the hell did you even think that?"
There are quite a few left-libertarians and mutualists, who don't think that property is currently owned by the right people, and advocate people in factories taking over the factories and throwing out management/owners, as the workers using a machine have a higher claim to it than the people (or their agents) who invested or attracted the capital to purchase that machine.
They aren't worried about cabins that have not been in use for 20 years. They want to take stuff with fairly clear title (because they don't believe the titles can ever be legit) right now.
It's crazy stuff.
liberty student: Scott F:With all due respect to you guys here who to be clear I do not hate and bare no ill will, I find an-cap in it's analysis to be superficial to some extent ,it's substance restrictive and limited and it's scope close to conventional with reactionary strokes. "This is just a knee jerk critique, unsubstantiated, unsourced and without any depth or indication of merit." An-caps are the king of knee jerk.You just have to look at discussions of environmentalism,socialism, threads on her by me on feminism etc. Why is an-cap superficial? It assumes socialism= anti market ,anti property(both impossible) while Capitalism= pro market,pro property.It dismisses Socialism as if it is whiney and without ANY merit whatsoever.It ignores it's ethical claims and ignores the possibility of a free market socialism mixing property arrangements of kinds, interest ,worker co-ops etc.Basically an-cap is failing into the knee jerk reactionary opposition to socialism that conservatives are fond of and it comes across in the same way as the stereotypical liberal vs conservative debate.The debate is conveyed in absolutist -take all or leave all terms.None of this is to say an-caps don't make correct points about socialism especially state socialism(of which they provide a rather good critique).An example of this knee jerk reactionism is Rothbard's own reaction to the idea of anarcho-communism which seems to live on in others who say voluntary communism/socialism is impossible. Why is an-cap restrictive? While there is SOME diversity in views ,it does pale in comparison to left-libertarian diversity.Anarcho-capitalism seems inherently tied to the idea of corporations,wage labour etc as unquestionably good and any questioning of this as socialist or anti-market.Examples of this include pro -walmart articles ignoring it's evils or dismisses them with strawmen,ignoring issues with bosses,ignoring the statist influence on corporations etc.(This is what left libertarians mean by vulgar libertarianism) .I can understand why they might be this way- most attacks of this sort come from state socialists.However this does not remove valid points voluntary socialists may have.Basically an-caps could benefit from some critical thought on these ideas and into understanding and reading social anarchists and other anarchist traditions.Furthermore an-cap seems to often ignore other arrangements such as worker co-ops,unions,mutual banks etc. "Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. " It claims to be yet implies a range of things tied to it's concept of 'Capitalism'. "If you want to claim otherwise, prove it" I will tell you by stating what these are- wage labour,corporations,big business,interest etc are tied to the idea of a free market as if they are synonmous.
Scott F:With all due respect to you guys here who to be clear I do not hate and bare no ill will, I find an-cap in it's analysis to be superficial to some extent ,it's substance restrictive and limited and it's scope close to conventional with reactionary strokes.
"This is just a knee jerk critique, unsubstantiated, unsourced and without any depth or indication of merit."
An-caps are the king of knee jerk.You just have to look at discussions of environmentalism,socialism, threads on her by me on feminism etc.
Why is an-cap superficial?
It assumes socialism= anti market ,anti property(both impossible) while Capitalism= pro market,pro property.It dismisses Socialism as if it is whiney and without ANY merit whatsoever.It ignores it's ethical claims and ignores the possibility of a free market socialism mixing property arrangements of kinds, interest ,worker co-ops etc.Basically an-cap is failing into the knee jerk reactionary opposition to socialism that conservatives are fond of and it comes across in the same way as the stereotypical liberal vs conservative debate.The debate is conveyed in absolutist -take all or leave all terms.None of this is to say an-caps don't make correct points about socialism especially state socialism(of which they provide a rather good critique).An example of this knee jerk reactionism is Rothbard's own reaction to the idea of anarcho-communism which seems to live on in others who say voluntary communism/socialism is impossible.
Why is an-cap restrictive?
While there is SOME diversity in views ,it does pale in comparison to left-libertarian diversity.Anarcho-capitalism seems inherently tied to the idea of corporations,wage labour etc as unquestionably good and any questioning of this as socialist or anti-market.Examples of this include pro -walmart articles ignoring it's evils or dismisses them with strawmen,ignoring issues with bosses,ignoring the statist influence on corporations etc.(This is what left libertarians mean by vulgar libertarianism) .I can understand why they might be this way- most attacks of this sort come from state socialists.However this does not remove valid points voluntary socialists may have.Basically an-caps could benefit from some critical thought on these ideas and into understanding and reading social anarchists and other anarchist traditions.Furthermore an-cap seems to often ignore other arrangements such as worker co-ops,unions,mutual banks etc.
"Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. "
It claims to be yet implies a range of things tied to it's concept of 'Capitalism'.
"If you want to claim otherwise, prove it"
I will tell you by stating what these are- wage labour,corporations,big business,interest etc are tied to the idea of a free market as if they are synonmous.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
liberty student: Scott F: liberty student: Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders. "How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?" I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals. "What have you seen written? Source please." This site for example. "Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist?" No. If it exist why is it not here? why is no one here talking about it? It's clear that Mises.org reflects to some extent the intellectual climate of anarcho-capitalism. " Are you omniscient?" No. "Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please." A range of articles on topics such as wal-mart,labour unions,sweatshops, workers,bosses.You need only look.I have a few examples in my if you can't find what I mean. "Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? " No but if someone cared enough it would be written somewhere and would've been mentioned very likely on mises.org or at least discussed.It has not.
Scott F: liberty student: Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders. "How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?" I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
liberty student: Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders. "How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?" I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
Scott F:There's a whole host of ideas an-caps have never considered or touched upon because of these ideological dichotomy blinders.
"How do you know what ideas ancaps have and have not considered?"
I can't know about all of them but I can see publicly what has been written,what has been thought of etc.I see no an-cap literature covering this ground.And on these forums I see knee jerk dismissals.
"What have you seen written? Source please."
This site for example.
"Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist?"
No. If it exist why is it not here? why is no one here talking about it? It's clear that Mises.org reflects to some extent the intellectual climate of anarcho-capitalism.
" Are you omniscient?"
No.
"Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please."
A range of articles on topics such as wal-mart,labour unions,sweatshops, workers,bosses.You need only look.I have a few examples in my if you can't find what I mean.
"Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? "
", although certainly they are mentioned from time to time with approval."
By who?
"there is a sort of "default" to imagining companies more as they are today,"
That's what I'm talking about.It's a very narrow assumption.
"but the more exacting writers and posters are generally careful to allow for other types of organization. "
That seems to be a minority and certainly not any major figures.
Okay.However An-caps have a tendency to continue to ignore how much the status quo in terms of economic exchanges,labour relations,corporations, the rich,the poor,sweatshops,bosses etc have been influenced by statism (directly or indirectly).
I know they do but they seem to work on the 'thin' basis that these are irrelevant in any discussion which I disagree with and seems an odd way to argue.
And therein lies some of the problem. I don't think the political ethic of libertarianism and general ethics should be so divided.And in regards to this example I think there are some clear connections between employee/boss relations and statism with statism tipped the scales in favour of the latter to the detriment of the former.
"i can agree that this situation of my employment and my annoying boss would be more favorable in the absence of a state, but i don't call that a political value. why do you? "
Because the unfavourable conditions are to a large extent a product of statist influence so I'm raising that as an issue.In absence of that statist influence I also am concerned with ethical issues which are raised in the relationship between them though admit it would be much much less of an issue minus the state.
Zangelbert Bingledack: and isn't that last point just a difference in where one draws the boundary between one's political and personal values? if so, that is just a matter of naming conventions.
I just don't seem a thin concept of libertarianism as making much sense.When we talk of libertarianism we have implied values -ideals which follow from libertarianism- so it seems weird to argue that it should just be about the NAP when the NAP is to some extent an ethical claim and also implies a number of things such as concern for others,seeking of mutually beneficial relations,opposition to unnecessary suffering etc.I just can't shake the strangeness that approx 50% of the reason to oppose the state is moral yet this is removed from the discussion.It just seems the wrong way to approach the issue isolating aggression without concern for cultural and economic relations/structures which are influenced by it.I just aim at something deeper more embracing.
Scott F: It assumes socialism= anti market ,anti property(both impossible) while Capitalism= pro market,pro property.
Is this an issue of definition? Those are Mises definitions. You're at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Would you care to explain what the "right" definitions in Scott's world are?
Scott F:While there is SOME diversity in views ,it does pale in comparison to left-libertarian diversity.
So basically, you are turtling now because you can't substantiate your position. Thanks.
Scott F:"Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. " It claims to be yet implies a range of things tied to it's concept of 'Capitalism'.
Don't assume without providing a chain of reasoning. I will call you out for it every time. Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT. Don't just repeat the claim.
Scott F:"If you want to claim otherwise, prove it" I will tell you by stating what these are- wage labour,corporations,big business,interest etc are tied to the idea of a free market as if they are synonmous.
Again, this is assertion, not proof. I asked you to PROVE IT.
Also, what is wage labor? Is that an economic term?
Scott F: liberty student: "What have you seen written? Source please." This site for example.
liberty student: "What have you seen written? Source please."
Where on this site. Source it. You have the power of Google's search engine to help you substantiate your claim. PROVE IT.
If you can't prove it, stop saying it as fact. Be responsible in debate and support your position, or admit it is arbitrary and a figment of an imagination. You don't get to create facts out of thin air.
Scott F: liberty student: "Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist?" No.
liberty student: "Because you see no ancap literature, does that mean ancap literature does not exist?"
Thanks for admitting you can't prove that claim either.
Scott F: liberty student: "Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please." A range of articles on topics such as wal-mart,labour unions,sweatshops, workers,bosses.You need only look.I have a few examples in my if you can't find what I mean.
liberty student: "Who has made a knee jerk dismissal? Source please."
Where are the sources Scott? Yes I want specific examples. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm asking you to prove the things you say. You say a lot, you have a lot to prove. Back up your claims. The posting standard here is high.
Scott F: liberty student: "Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? " No
liberty student: "Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? "
No
So again, you made a claim you can't back up.
Scott F: liberty student: "Is literature the only domain of ancap thought? " ... but if someone cared enough it would be written somewhere and would've been mentioned very likely on mises.org or at least discussed.It has not.
... but if someone cared enough it would be written somewhere and would've been mentioned very likely on mises.org or at least discussed.It has not.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That's a logical fallacy on your part, one you have repeated numerous times.
Care for....You know the meaning.I won't debate with some sort of Positivist crazy.
What is positivism, and how can someone who claims to be a Misean be a positivist?
I don't see an argument, all I see are statements and slogans. Look: what is a market? What is economics? What is praxeology? what can and can not be stated about intersubjective human action? How does material shift to to fro? How are calculations of value and benefit decided? What is time preference? Tell me.
The only left-libertarians I know who were willing to unambiguously define terms are Wombatron and JCFolsom.
I just don't seem a thin concept of libertarianism as making much sense.When we talk of libertarianism we have implied values...
Not necessarily. Some forms of libertarianism (like strict liberalism) don't rely on value judgments (such as ranking liberty higher than equality), but are based on epistemological premises and contain no normative propositions. Also, there are forms of libertarianism that are completely negative in character and merely show the incoherence of certain statist ideologies or the invalidity of the arguments used to justify the powers the sovereign exercises over others which do not rest on the believers of such systems having certain values. Although to be fair, what you said is true of atleast 99% of "libertarianisms".
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Not necessarily. Some forms of libertarianism (like strict liberalism) don't rely on value judgments (such as ranking liberty higher than equality), but are based on epistemological premises and contain no normative propositions.
There is no such thing as a domain of discourse and knowledge that does not rely on norms - especially as it relates to politics, which inherently involves interpersonal norms. Epistemology has normativity all over it. Epistemological theories and projects are essentially the establishment of norms for justified belief and argumentation. Hence, I can't accept the narrative of a purely dry objective knowledge that is completely detached from normativity. I'm a firm believer that fact and value are naturally intertwined, which also means that I don't think there is such thing as genuinely "value-free science".
Epistemological theories and projects are essentially the establishment of norms for justified belief and argumentation.
Could you provide an example of this? I, for one, don't see how "reason will...", "reason is...", or "reason can..." is not distinct from "you ought to reason".
Where is this normativity? I understand that there is no such thing as neutrality, per se, but could you identify perhaps what you think the facts and values are that are intertwined, as it were, in praxeology?
Brainpolice:There is no such thing as a domain of discourse and knowledge that does not rely on norms - especially as it relates to politics, which inherently involves interpersonal norms. Epistemology has normativity all over it. Epistemological theories and projects are essentially the establishment of norms for justified belief and argumentation. Hence, I can't accept the narrative of a purely dry objective knowledge that is completely detached from normativity. I'm a firm believer that fact and value are naturally intertwined, which also means that I don't think there is such thing as genuinely "value-free science".
Given your disdain for hoppian argumentation ethics I can't believe you wrote that.
I don't mean to engage you in a big debate, just to tell you you can still surprise me.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Given your disdain for hoppian argumentation ethics I can't believe you wrote that. I don't mean to engage you in a big debate, just to tell you you can still surprise me.
The main difference is that I don't regard such norms as necessarily having the kind of axiomatic, innate and ultimately authoritative status that argumentation ethics tries to give it. Rather, I'm emphasizing normativity closer to the way in which someone like William James would have, I.E. "truth" is functionally normative and there is no such thing as an archimedian point of reference. We can't communicate ideas outside of a conceptual and value-laden heirarchy/network. Institutions also often functionally play the role of arbiters of the limitation and demarkation of domains of knowledge and what can or cannot constitute knowledge qua knowledge. "Science" is functionally a word meant to give authoritative status to certain discourses as a domain of knowledge within the limits of certain institutional structures and to the exclusion of other discourses. The story of science as a detached pursuit of knowledge is falsified when one looks into the history of science.
There is no such thing as a domain of discourse and knowledge that does not rely on norms - especially as it relates to politics, which inherently involves interpersonal norms.
Correct, but whether or not an argument is valid does not depend on the preferences of the people formulating or criticizing the argument. Propositions like "argument X is invalid" or "the means A used by M contradict the stated end B of M" are not true or false based on the value judgments of any particular persons.
<3
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
We can't communicate ideas outside of a conceptual and value-laden heirarchy/network.
That's true enough, and I don't know if other people take it further than this, but my idea of Praxeology is that we refer to values in the value-free sense as being ethically free. That is, statements about factual reality and statements about ethics can be (in this instance) separated.
I think that seems commonsensical enough.
Brainpolice: " I'm a firm believer that fact and value are naturally intertwined," I've believed that for a while and stupidly have only recently noticed the implications. "which also means that I don't think there is such thing as genuinely "value-free science"." I've been moving this direction recently.I'm beginning to think the AE idea of value free economics is impossible or maybe unlikely.I guess it's thereotically possible to say X will result in Y consequences.But then that could be subtle implication that Y is bad.Furthermore I've yet to see an AE text without talk of ethics(including consequences)
" I'm a firm believer that fact and value are naturally intertwined,"
I've believed that for a while and stupidly have only recently noticed the implications.
"which also means that I don't think there is such thing as genuinely "value-free science"."
I've been moving this direction recently.I'm beginning to think the AE idea of value free economics is impossible or maybe unlikely.I guess it's thereotically possible to say X will result in Y consequences.But then that could be subtle implication that Y is bad.Furthermore I've yet to see an AE text without talk of ethics(including consequences)
liberty student: Scott F: It assumes socialism= anti market ,anti property(both impossible) while Capitalism= pro market,pro property. "Is this an issue of definition?" To some extent. " Those are Mises definitions. You're at the Ludwig von Mises Institute." True but that doesn't mean their correct. "Would you care to explain what the "right" definitions in Scott's world are?" I don't think either has a clear definition.There's too much confusion.Socialism could mean collective ownership of the means of production- state enforced or voluntary.Or Benjamin Tucker defined it roughly as concern for the labouring classes('the labour problem') and opposition to privilege. Scott F:While there is SOME diversity in views ,it does pale in comparison to left-libertarian diversity. "So basically, you are turtling now because you can't substantiate your position. Thanks." No.I'm qualifying my statement.I'm not going to argue everyone here believes exactly the same.That's be silly.But there definately is a strong sense of orthodoxy ,granted less than randianism or statism but less compared to left-libertarianism.Now I admit that some limits are inevitable in any group of people but the limits here seem and feel too narrow -logically in terms of how issues are portrayed i.e. capitalism vs socialism and in terms of what issues are taken up. Scott F:"Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. " It claims to be yet implies a range of things tied to it's concept of 'Capitalism'. " Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT. Don't just repeat the claim." Ancap implies it's desirable to have big business as PDA, Ancap implies support for big business is inherent to libertarianism and opposition is anti-libertarian,Ancap implies support for wagelabour is inherent to libertarianism,Ancap implies wagelabour is not problematic at all,Ancap explictly claims voluntary kinds of Socialism has no legitimate concerns in regards to bosses,property in land,wagelabour,corporations,landlords etc. Scott F:"If you want to claim otherwise, prove it" I will tell you by stating what these are- wage labour,corporations,big business,interest etc are tied to the idea of a free market as if they are synonmous. "Again, this is assertion, not proof. I asked you to PROVE IT." It's implied in the rhetoric of Ancap. "Also, what is wage labor? " Working for a wage.Standard definition.
"Is this an issue of definition?"
To some extent.
" Those are Mises definitions. You're at the Ludwig von Mises Institute."
True but that doesn't mean their correct.
"Would you care to explain what the "right" definitions in Scott's world are?"
I don't think either has a clear definition.There's too much confusion.Socialism could mean collective ownership of the means of production- state enforced or voluntary.Or Benjamin Tucker defined it roughly as concern for the labouring classes('the labour problem') and opposition to privilege.
"So basically, you are turtling now because you can't substantiate your position. Thanks."
No.I'm qualifying my statement.I'm not going to argue everyone here believes exactly the same.That's be silly.But there definately is a strong sense of orthodoxy ,granted less than randianism or statism but less compared to left-libertarianism.Now I admit that some limits are inevitable in any group of people but the limits here seem and feel too narrow -logically in terms of how issues are portrayed i.e. capitalism vs socialism and in terms of what issues are taken up.
" Ancap is the NAP, nothing more, nothing less. If you claim otherwise, PROVE IT. Don't just repeat the claim."
Ancap implies it's desirable to have big business as PDA, Ancap implies support for big business is inherent to libertarianism and opposition is anti-libertarian,Ancap implies support for wagelabour is inherent to libertarianism,Ancap implies wagelabour is not problematic at all,Ancap explictly claims voluntary kinds of Socialism has no legitimate concerns in regards to bosses,property in land,wagelabour,corporations,landlords etc.
"Again, this is assertion, not proof. I asked you to PROVE IT."
It's implied in the rhetoric of Ancap.
"Also, what is wage labor? "
Working for a wage.Standard definition.
Where are the sources Scott? Yes I want specific examples.
Why Wal-Mart Matters by Art Carden
How "Sweatshops" Help the Poor
The Ultimate pro-WalMart Article
The Case for Discrimination(Not on this site but you get my point)
The Myth of Voluntary Unions
The Myths of Capitalism's History
Labor Day and Freedom
are just some of the ones which most caught my attention and which I know of off the top of my head.
"Is literature the only domain of ancap thought?
"So again, you made a claim you can't back up."
If you can direct me to a podcast,blog or the like where I'm wrong.I'll gladly admit it." That's a logical fallacy on your part, one you have repeated numerous times."
Ok let me phrase my point more precisely. No Anarcho-Capitalist(other than me shallowly when I was an-cap) has publicly addressed these issues.
William: Care for....You know the meaning.I won't debate with some sort of Positivist crazy. "What is positivism," A form of extremist exclusionary empiricism.It seeks to downplay a priori logic. "and how can someone who claims to be a Misean be a positivist?" I don't think they can but I'm seem some(not necessarily here) try to.Mises and others have demolished it as well as other philosophers. True enough but that misses the point.I'm arguing that the Misean definitions of Socialism are so limited as to almost exclude voluntary socialism and to ignore free market socialism.Misean definitions of Capitalism conflate it and free market,wage labour etc.It ignores other definitions used. " Look: what is a market?" Voluntary interaction between two or more individuals.Trade basically. " What is economics?" a science which seeks to use a priori logic but also empiricism to develop axioms of human action in specifically the realm of trade, kinds of trade and structures surrounding it.That's a rough definition.I'm happy with the typical austrian definition. " What is praxeology?" typical AE definition.Science of human action. "what can and can not be stated about intersubjective human action?" Plenty. " Tell me." What's the point of all these questions? If your trying to determine if I'm austrian then yes I am.I agree with Mises and Rothbard on economics.However I consider left-libertarianism to be an awareness of the implications and to be careful to qualify claims such as discrimination being eliminated by competition by being clear that only applies in a free market which is often assumed we have implictly. I don't think voluntary socialism is necessary incompatible with AE or Libertarianism. Can we get to matters of substance now? and if we disagree on definitions I'll explain.
"What is positivism,"
A form of extremist exclusionary empiricism.It seeks to downplay a priori logic.
"and how can someone who claims to be a Misean be a positivist?"
I don't think they can but I'm seem some(not necessarily here) try to.Mises and others have demolished it as well as other philosophers.
" Look: what is a market?"
Voluntary interaction between two or more individuals.Trade basically.
" What is economics?"
a science which seeks to use a priori logic but also empiricism to develop axioms of human action in specifically the realm of trade, kinds of trade and structures surrounding it.That's a rough definition.I'm happy with the typical austrian definition.
" What is praxeology?"
typical AE definition.Science of human action.
"what can and can not be stated about intersubjective human action?"
Plenty.
" Tell me."
What's the point of all these questions?
If your trying to determine if I'm austrian then yes I am.I agree with Mises and Rothbard on economics.However I consider left-libertarianism to be an awareness of the implications and to be careful to qualify claims such as discrimination being eliminated by competition by being clear that only applies in a free market which is often assumed we have implictly.
I don't think voluntary socialism is necessary incompatible with AE or Libertarianism.
Can we get to matters of substance now? and if we disagree on definitions I'll explain.
Solid_Choke: I just don't seem a thin concept of libertarianism as making much sense.When we talk of libertarianism we have implied values... "Not necessarily." I think of libertarianism as belief in the NAP.Your not seriously going to tell me belief in the NAP doesn't imply anything such as concern for others,concern for others suffering,belief in worth of at least some others etc "Some forms of libertarianism (like strict liberalism) don't rely on value judgments (such as ranking liberty higher than equality)" How so? can you give an example? what is strict liberalism? " Also, there are forms of libertarianism that are completely negative in character and merely show the incoherence of certain statist ideologies or the invalidity of the arguments used to justify the powers the sovereign exercises over others" I'm not sure you can do that in a value free way. How can you argue against statism (1) using a moral argument including appeal to moral intuitions ,appeal to emotions etc(2) appeal to consequences-not necessarily exclusive to moral argument and pretty much tied up with moral arguments (3) Economics which again is tied up with consequences and morals ... that's probably not exclusive but what I'm saying it's I'm not sure how you can have a value free argument for a pretty value laden theory -libertarianism- and a value itself- liberty.
"Not necessarily."
I think of libertarianism as belief in the NAP.Your not seriously going to tell me belief in the NAP doesn't imply anything such as concern for others,concern for others suffering,belief in worth of at least some others etc
"Some forms of libertarianism (like strict liberalism) don't rely on value judgments (such as ranking liberty higher than equality)"
How so? can you give an example? what is strict liberalism?
" Also, there are forms of libertarianism that are completely negative in character and merely show the incoherence of certain statist ideologies or the invalidity of the arguments used to justify the powers the sovereign exercises over others"
I'm not sure you can do that in a value free way. How can you argue against statism (1) using a moral argument including appeal to moral intuitions ,appeal to emotions etc(2) appeal to consequences-not necessarily exclusive to moral argument and pretty much tied up with moral arguments (3) Economics which again is tied up with consequences and morals ... that's probably not exclusive but what I'm saying it's I'm not sure how you can have a value free argument for a pretty value laden theory -libertarianism- and a value itself- liberty.
scott f:Ancap implies it's desirable to have big business as PDA, Ancap implies support for big business is inherent to libertarianism and opposition is anti-libertarian,Ancap implies support for wagelabour is inherent to libertarianism,Ancap implies wagelabour is not problematic at all,Ancap explictly claims voluntary kinds of Socialism has no legitimate concerns in regards to bosses,property in land,wagelabour,corporations,landlords etc.
By "implies" you mean "does not explicitly state otherwise" in the first sentence, right? And by "support" you really mean "does not allow for agression against," right? By your definition of wage labor (working for a wage) we can replace that ulgy term with "income." Also, can you stop referring to some monolithic entity called Ancap? Political philosophies don't act, individuals do. I'm sure that voluntary socialists have plenty of legitimate concerns about all kinds of things, but whether or not they have anything to do with libertarianism is another issue. Example: I am often concerned about the tension between my roommates when they argue about taking out the trash; however, I do not get upset that Walter Block did not mention this issue in his latest article.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Scott F,
The NAP is not synonomous with libertarianism. Most forms of libertarianism can be approximated by the NAP, but not all. I was referring to the latter (obviously).
Here is a very short introduction to strict liberalism.
I'm not sure you can do that in a value free way.
I'm not sure either, but I think it highly probable.
How can you argue against statism (1) using a moral argument including appeal to moral intuitions ,appeal to emotions etc(2) appeal to consequences-not necessarily exclusive to moral argument and pretty much tied up with moral arguments (3) Economics which again is tied up with consequences and morals ... that's probably not exclusive but what I'm saying it's I'm not sure how you can have a value free argument for a pretty value laden theory -libertarianism- and a value itself- liberty.
Every single one of your assumptions misses my point. I was not referring kinds of libertarianism that are based on "moral" arguments or that rely on moral intuitions or by appeal to consequences. I have been called a libertarian (I think, rightly) by debate partners simply for advancing arguments showing the internal inconsistency of a particular social contract theory and pointing out that the burden of proof is on them to show that I am or anyone else is obligated to obey the state.
These kinds of arguments contain no ethical/moral/consequential premises. Pointing out that the people putting forward such arguments have values and prefer one state of affairs over another does not make the arguments themselves reliant on value judgments for their soundness/unsoundness.
Awareness? So If I state A + B = C and you agree but insist on giving me leftist political slogans, what is the point? Is this what you chalk up as "awarness", putting the correct accents in dialogue on the "evils" of corporations, or whatever? There is no disagreement, there is just your insistence of inserting the "correct" aesthetical statements at any given point. Do you see how this confuses matters? Likewise do you not see the pointlessness/ incorrect thinking of concerning one self with "the real true future outlook on things when MY anarchy is in control"? All we should be concerned with is what can and can not be stated regarding material reality, not future outcomes or aesthetical preferences.
As to socialism, there is that nasty calculation problem and the fact that a group of any relevant size simply can't be socialistic (it is impossible) and live. It isn't that it is or is not compatible with AE, it is incompatible with reality. But if a bunch of goofy college kids want to call what ever hip hairbrained social scheme they come up with that month and call it " voluntary socialism", "the king of Prussia", or "God" that's peaches and cream to me so long as I can ignore it.
Now as to why you find a tax eater like Chomsky the bees knees, tolerable, reasonable, not counterproductive, or "cool" and Ron Paul is a right wing counter productive cult leader is oddly amusing and bemusing, but I don't think there can be much said about it.
Solid_Choke: Scott F, I think of libertarianism as belief in the NAP.Your not seriously going to tell me belief in the NAP doesn't imply anything such as concern for others,concern for others suffering,belief in worth of at least some others etc " Most forms of libertarianism can be approximated by the NAP, but not all. I was referring to the latter (obviously)." which kinds cannot? How so? can you give an example? what is strict liberalism? "Here is a very short introduction to strict liberalism." Interesting.It seems a more broadly conceived non NAP libertarianism which could become non libertarian and also might imply the NAP. " I was not referring kinds of libertarianism that are based on "moral" arguments or that rely on moral intuitions or by appeal to consequences. I have been called a libertarian (I think, rightly) by debate partners simply for advancing arguments showing the internal inconsistency of a particular social contract theory and pointing out that the burden of proof is on them to show that I am or anyone else is obligated to obey the state. These kinds of arguments contain no ethical/moral/consequential premises. Pointing out that the people putting forward such arguments have values and prefer one state of affairs over another does not make the arguments themselves reliant on value judgments for their soundness/unsoundness." That seems value free yet surely preference for rationality over irrationality is value laden discourse too?
" Most forms of libertarianism can be approximated by the NAP, but not all. I was referring to the latter (obviously)."
which kinds cannot?
"Here is a very short introduction to strict liberalism."
Interesting.It seems a more broadly conceived non NAP libertarianism which could become non libertarian and also might imply the NAP.
" I was not referring kinds of libertarianism that are based on "moral" arguments or that rely on moral intuitions or by appeal to consequences. I have been called a libertarian (I think, rightly) by debate partners simply for advancing arguments showing the internal inconsistency of a particular social contract theory and pointing out that the burden of proof is on them to show that I am or anyone else is obligated to obey the state.
These kinds of arguments contain no ethical/moral/consequential premises. Pointing out that the people putting forward such arguments have values and prefer one state of affairs over another does not make the arguments themselves reliant on value judgments for their soundness/unsoundness."
That seems value free yet surely preference for rationality over irrationality is value laden discourse too?
mikachusetts: scott f:Ancap implies it's desirable to have big business as PDA, Ancap implies support for big business is inherent to libertarianism and opposition is anti-libertarian,Ancap implies support for wagelabour is inherent to libertarianism,Ancap implies wagelabour is not problematic at all,Ancap explictly claims voluntary kinds of Socialism has no legitimate concerns in regards to bosses,property in land,wagelabour,corporations,landlords etc. "By "implies" you mean "does not explicitly state otherwise" in the first sentence, right?" Yes it does not explictly state it but seems to suggest it is logically entailed. " And by "support" you really mean "does not allow for agression against," right? " No.I mean it suggests moral/cultural support is logically entailed. "By your definition of wage labor (working for a wage) we can replace that ulgy term with "income." I should probably add that I more correctly mean working for another for a wage not self employment.Though I suppose you could be strict and seek semantic precision. " Also, can you stop referring to some monolithic entity called Ancap?" It's true it's not monolithic but it's has a pretty strong orthodoxy. " I'm sure that voluntary socialists have plenty of legitimate concerns about all kinds of things," Success! I'm glad you think so. "but whether or not they have anything to do with libertarianism is another issue." I would argue (1) yes they do since the cause of many of these issues is directly or indirectly caused by statism (2) libertarianism is actually thick and belief in it and general anarchism logically embodies/entails broader social/moral/cultural concerns(what Radgeek charles Johnson refers to as strategic thickness) " Example: I am often concerned about the tension between my roommates when they argue about taking out the trash; however, I do not get upset that Walter Block did not mention this issue in his latest article." That's a strawman but a hilarious one so i'll let it slide without much comment.Left-Libertarians are concerned with how structures and institutions can and do dehumanize and marginalize people which in many ways is interlinked with how statism does the same while oppressing them.
"By "implies" you mean "does not explicitly state otherwise" in the first sentence, right?"
Yes it does not explictly state it but seems to suggest it is logically entailed.
" And by "support" you really mean "does not allow for agression against," right? "
No.I mean it suggests moral/cultural support is logically entailed.
"By your definition of wage labor (working for a wage) we can replace that ulgy term with "income."
I should probably add that I more correctly mean working for another for a wage not self employment.Though I suppose you could be strict and seek semantic precision.
" Also, can you stop referring to some monolithic entity called Ancap?"
It's true it's not monolithic but it's has a pretty strong orthodoxy.
" I'm sure that voluntary socialists have plenty of legitimate concerns about all kinds of things,"
Success! I'm glad you think so.
"but whether or not they have anything to do with libertarianism is another issue."
I would argue (1) yes they do since the cause of many of these issues is directly or indirectly caused by statism (2) libertarianism is actually thick and belief in it and general anarchism logically embodies/entails broader social/moral/cultural concerns(what Radgeek charles Johnson refers to as strategic thickness)
" Example: I am often concerned about the tension between my roommates when they argue about taking out the trash; however, I do not get upset that Walter Block did not mention this issue in his latest article."
That's a strawman but a hilarious one so i'll let it slide without much comment.Left-Libertarians are concerned with how structures and institutions can and do dehumanize and marginalize people which in many ways is interlinked with how statism does the same while oppressing them.
William: If your trying to determine if I'm austrian then yes I am.I agree with Mises and Rothbard on economics.However I consider left-libertarianism to be an awareness of the implications and to be careful to qualify claims such as discrimination being eliminated by competition by being clear that only applies in a free market which is often assumed we have implictly. I don't think voluntary socialism is necessary incompatible with AE or Libertarianism. Can we get to matters of substance now? and if we disagree on definitions I'll explain. "Awareness? So If I state A + B = C and you agree but insist on giving me leftist political slogans, what is the point?" Because they are relevant and you exude knee jerk reaction to them.They are not mere slogans. " putting the correct accents in dialogue on the "evils" of corporations, or whatever? " what does that even mean? "There is no disagreement, there is just your insistence of inserting the "correct" aesthetical statements at any given point." If corporations are statist it is a correct 'aesthetic' statement to be anti-corporate. " Likewise do you not see the pointlessness/ incorrect thinking of concerning one self with "the real true future outlook on things when MY anarchy is in control"? " I'm not talking narrowly of when 'my anarchy' is in control.Ancaps are guilty of that.Not me.No all I'm saying is what things would be like(as far as knowable) without statism. " not future outcomes or aesthetical preferences." So Basically as long as there's no state who cares about morality.Hmm.That's the issue with thin libertarianism.I see a relation between ends and means.This also explains your and others here's disconnect between achieving anarchy and how to do so e.g. ron paul or political parties. "As to socialism, there is that nasty calculation problem" It's unclear whether this appeals to voluntary socialism and for example kinds such as mutualism which are pro-trade and do not seek to abolish money or the like as opposed to something like anarcho-communism.As for me I'm not a voluntary socialist based on the typical definition so it doesn't worry me. "and the fact that a group of any relevant size simply can't be socialistic (it is impossible) and live." I fail to see any evidence of this unless I'm wrong about the above.I tend to think An-caps just like to deny anarchic socialism is possible as one-up-manship forgetting similiar false arguments are used against them and private companies(not corporations which are different) in anarchy. " But if a bunch of goofy college kids want to call what ever hip hairbrained social scheme they come up with that month and call it " voluntary socialism", "the king of Prussia", or "God" that's peaches and cream to me so long as I can ignore it." That reflects the general an-cap ignorance to alternatives that attacks as an ideological blinder to valid criticism and helps maintain their image to others of being 'right wing' which I now completely understand. "Now as to why you find a tax eater like Chomsky the bees knees," I don't find him the bees knees.Where are you getting this.I've said he's good on war imperialism,lingustics and media propaganda.Not much else.He's not my favourite thinker by far.I'm still quite a fan of rothbard and consider myself roughly 95% rothbardian much like left-libertarian Roderick Long. " reasonable" I and other left-libertarians are vocal about his errors. " and Ron Paul is a right wing counter productive cult leader" Look at how many libertarian/anarchist sites have submitted to a lovefest of him- a politician! and consider his record which IS right wing.Like Chomsky,Ron Paul isn't worthless but he's not perfect or consistent either. Clearly I've touched a nerve for breaking with orthodoxy. I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know. Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist. | Post Points: 20
"Awareness? So If I state A + B = C and you agree but insist on giving me leftist political slogans, what is the point?"
Because they are relevant and you exude knee jerk reaction to them.They are not mere slogans.
" putting the correct accents in dialogue on the "evils" of corporations, or whatever? "
what does that even mean?
"There is no disagreement, there is just your insistence of inserting the "correct" aesthetical statements at any given point."
If corporations are statist it is a correct 'aesthetic' statement to be anti-corporate.
" Likewise do you not see the pointlessness/ incorrect thinking of concerning one self with "the real true future outlook on things when MY anarchy is in control"? "
I'm not talking narrowly of when 'my anarchy' is in control.Ancaps are guilty of that.Not me.No all I'm saying is what things would be like(as far as knowable) without statism.
" not future outcomes or aesthetical preferences."
So Basically as long as there's no state who cares about morality.Hmm.That's the issue with thin libertarianism.I see a relation between ends and means.This also explains your and others here's disconnect between achieving anarchy and how to do so e.g. ron paul or political parties.
"As to socialism, there is that nasty calculation problem"
It's unclear whether this appeals to voluntary socialism and for example kinds such as mutualism which are pro-trade and do not seek to abolish money or the like as opposed to something like anarcho-communism.As for me I'm not a voluntary socialist based on the typical definition so it doesn't worry me.
"and the fact that a group of any relevant size simply can't be socialistic (it is impossible) and live."
I fail to see any evidence of this unless I'm wrong about the above.I tend to think An-caps just like to deny anarchic socialism is possible as one-up-manship forgetting similiar false arguments are used against them and private companies(not corporations which are different) in anarchy.
" But if a bunch of goofy college kids want to call what ever hip hairbrained social scheme they come up with that month and call it " voluntary socialism", "the king of Prussia", or "God" that's peaches and cream to me so long as I can ignore it."
That reflects the general an-cap ignorance to alternatives that attacks as an ideological blinder to valid criticism and helps maintain their image to others of being 'right wing' which I now completely understand.
"Now as to why you find a tax eater like Chomsky the bees knees,"
I don't find him the bees knees.Where are you getting this.I've said he's good on war imperialism,lingustics and media propaganda.Not much else.He's not my favourite thinker by far.I'm still quite a fan of rothbard and consider myself roughly 95% rothbardian much like left-libertarian Roderick Long.
" reasonable"
I and other left-libertarians are vocal about his errors.
" and Ron Paul is a right wing counter productive cult leader"
Look at how many libertarian/anarchist sites have submitted to a lovefest of him- a politician! and consider his record which IS right wing.Like Chomsky,Ron Paul isn't worthless but he's not perfect or consistent either.
Clearly I've touched a nerve for breaking with orthodoxy.
For instance, the form of libertarianism that I listed right underneath your comment and the anecdote I gave about my personal debate history.
Whether something is rational or not is a matter of fact, not of preference. Whether rationality should be preferred over irrationality is a matter of value. I agree that discourse is value-laden, but the purely negative anti-statist (libertarian) arguments I was referring to do not depend on normative premises for their soundness/unsoundness (which is merely a matter of their logical form and the truth value of the positive propositions contained in the premises).
I maintain that one can be (as in, it is logically possible, but perhaps unlikely) a libertarian merely by affirming the soundness of a small set of positive arguments. Therefore, one can be considered a libertarian without necessarily having a certain preference ordering (in the same way that one could be a Newtonian or Einsteinian without necessarily having a certain preference ordering).
I fail to see any evidence of this unless I'm wrong about the above.I tend to think An-caps just like to deny anarchic socialism is possible as one-up-manship
Clearly I've touched a nerve for breaking with orthodoxy
OK, last post on this for me, because I am just as confused as I was on the beginning as I am now. We are clearly talking past each other.
All I am reading is you agree with libertarians except for the fact that you are a left libertarian. That is to say if I was a libertarian, but somehow was really concerned about the state of affairs of watermelons, but agreed with ever tenant of market economics I would call myself a "watermelon libertarian". It isn't so much that what libertarians (or more accurately, free marketers) say is wrong they just don't talk about watermelons enough so I am a "watermelon libertarian".
You are not so much breaking the orthodoxy (which is perhaps something you want to do) as insisting on inserting uneccesary confusing things into the dialogue.
Anyway last word is yours if you want.
lol, over 100 posts later and I still have no idea what mutualism is.
If by mutualism you mean you mean whatever Proudhon was, then, as far as I can tell, mutualism is anarcho-capitalism with a monopoly credit institution that must only operate at the break-even point and a legal system that only accepts conditional (on being currently in "possesion") property titles on land as valid. What am I missing mutualists?
That is sort of what I thought, with LTV, anti-interest, ect but I continually run into sentences like this (from earlier in this thread):
it is clear that most commenters probably *don't* understand mutualism (but neither do most mutualists).
Just to double check with the mutualists, we are talking about a scientific economic theory correct?
Solid_Choke: which kinds cannot? "For instance, the form of libertarianism that I listed right underneath your comment and the anecdote I gave about my personal debate history." Your probably right .I'm not sure the language used was fuzzy. That seems value free yet surely preference for rationality over irrationality is value laden discourse too? "Whether something is rational or not is a matter of fact, not of preference." I agree BUT whether you value rationality or not is a value. " (which is merely a matter of their logical form and the truth value of the positive propositions contained in the premises)." But to favour rationality over irrationality and truth over falsity is still to favour values.That's not value free either. "I maintain that one can be (as in, it is logically possible, but perhaps unlikely) a libertarian merely by affirming the soundness of a small set of positive arguments. " I'm not sure how it's possible.As I've already said most positions are involved with value in some sense.
"For instance, the form of libertarianism that I listed right underneath your comment and the anecdote I gave about my personal debate history."
Your probably right .I'm not sure the language used was fuzzy.
"Whether something is rational or not is a matter of fact, not of preference."
I agree BUT whether you value rationality or not is a value.
" (which is merely a matter of their logical form and the truth value of the positive propositions contained in the premises)."
But to favour rationality over irrationality and truth over falsity is still to favour values.That's not value free either.
"I maintain that one can be (as in, it is logically possible, but perhaps unlikely) a libertarian merely by affirming the soundness of a small set of positive arguments. "
William: "All I am reading is you agree with libertarians except for the fact that you are a left libertarian." Ah.Now see you've made a mistake.You seem to be implying that left-libertarianism is not libertarian where as I argue it is.I just reject most of the 'capitalist' aspects of an-cap,plus the thinness etc and all of minarchism(which I do not view as libertarian anyway) Secondly it's not completely true that's my only difference. I'll try to lay out best as I can some of my differences. An-caps typically think statism is only shallowly embedded in the economy while I however think it goes to the deepest levels involved in employee-employer relations,rent,interest,overheads ,corporations,big business etc.I think it strange an-caps do not see this.Essentially we look at statism entanglement in the status quo economic arrangement on a deeper level being careful not too quickly to say X current feature would exist on a free market but looking at how the state directly and indirectly effects it. An-caps consider the scope of libertarianism to be the NAP ONLY.I say no that morality is and should be involved in libertarianism(Thickism) yet not used to negative the NAP or develop a set 'libertarian moral creed'. An-caps are typically unwilling and unable to look outside their anarchism at other anarchist traditions to find valid comments/criticisms. I have concerns about the authoritarianism in ownership of land which is seperate from the fact I believe there is a right in accord with the NAP to hold legitimately aquired property. I think the state is the cause of many legitimate problems statist leftists/left liberals have historically complained(e.g. dominance of a few hierchical huge corporations) about and the free market is the solution **** this is to me the core message of left-libertarianism**** Concern for the downtrodden/marginalized particularly seeing as statism is the part cause of this situtation if not THE cause. " That is to say if I was a libertarian, but somehow was really concerned about the state of affairs of watermelons, but agreed with ever tenant of market economics I would call myself a "watermelon libertarian". It isn't so much that what libertarians (or more accurately, free marketers) say is wrong they just don't talk about watermelons enough so I am a "watermelon libertarian". " I'm not sure what your trying to prove.In anycase (1) I think an-caps are wrong on some issues (2) they are inconsistent on isses they are good on in general.The lines of 1 and 2 are somewhat blurry. "You are not so much breaking the orthodoxy (which is perhaps something you want to do)" I disagree. Anarcho-capitalism tends to imply an-cap =pro market while socialist or non an-cap= anti market.What I and left-libertarians are saying is this is all wrong. For one 'anti market' doesn't really have any meaning.Secondly left libertarians are anti or non 'capitalist'(whatever that's taken to mean) while being pro freeD market and 'pro market'.Left libertarians shatter the false dichotomy but in an-cap mentality this divergence means left-libs are anti market which is false in semantic terms and in substance (often excepting an-coms etc ) I do understand why this is hard to understand.I admit I didn't used to get it either.It breaks everything we've ever known.Anarcho-capitalism has developed largely in opposition to socialism so has defined itself as the opposite of such in much the same way conservatives (try) to define themselves in opposition to 'liberals'.However the problem with that is in knee jerk opposition an-cap has taken on undesirable aspects(for fear of adopting the whole of socialism) which socialism rightly opposes and condemns.An-cap has become in some ways reactionary and too much siding with conservatives. as insisting on inserting uneccesary confusing things into the dialogue. Anyway last word is yours if you want.
"All I am reading is you agree with libertarians except for the fact that you are a left libertarian."
Ah.Now see you've made a mistake.You seem to be implying that left-libertarianism is not libertarian where as I argue it is.I just reject most of the 'capitalist' aspects of an-cap,plus the thinness etc and all of minarchism(which I do not view as libertarian anyway)
Secondly it's not completely true that's my only difference.
I'll try to lay out best as I can some of my differences.
" That is to say if I was a libertarian, but somehow was really concerned about the state of affairs of watermelons, but agreed with ever tenant of market economics I would call myself a "watermelon libertarian". It isn't so much that what libertarians (or more accurately, free marketers) say is wrong they just don't talk about watermelons enough so I am a "watermelon libertarian". "
I'm not sure what your trying to prove.In anycase (1) I think an-caps are wrong on some issues (2) they are inconsistent on isses they are good on in general.The lines of 1 and 2 are somewhat blurry.
"You are not so much breaking the orthodoxy (which is perhaps something you want to do)"
I disagree. Anarcho-capitalism tends to imply an-cap =pro market while socialist or non an-cap= anti market.What I and left-libertarians are saying is this is all wrong. For one 'anti market' doesn't really have any meaning.Secondly left libertarians are anti or non 'capitalist'(whatever that's taken to mean) while being pro freeD market and 'pro market'.Left libertarians shatter the false dichotomy but in an-cap mentality this divergence means left-libs are anti market which is false in semantic terms and in substance (often excepting an-coms etc ) I do understand why this is hard to understand.I admit I didn't used to get it either.It breaks everything we've ever known.Anarcho-capitalism has developed largely in opposition to socialism so has defined itself as the opposite of such in much the same way conservatives (try) to define themselves in opposition to 'liberals'.However the problem with that is in knee jerk opposition an-cap has taken on undesirable aspects(for fear of adopting the whole of socialism) which socialism rightly opposes and condemns.An-cap has become in some ways reactionary and too much siding with conservatives.
as insisting on inserting uneccesary confusing things into the dialogue.
Solid_Choke: lol, over 100 posts later and I still have no idea what mutualism is.
I'm not expert nor a mutualist and I know it varies widely but what I know is said to be it's essence is:-
Belief in a FORM of LTV, Mutual recipriocity in all relations ,mutual banking, occupany and use theory of land ownership, belief in bottom up organization ,anti corporation ,opposition to Benjamin Tucker's four monopolies,understanding that statism benefits the rich landlords corporations bosses etc at the expense of everyone else....
I've tried this before, and it has been rejected but what the hell. Is this it:
http://panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html