"Not to jump into another discussion, but that's a rather lame argument. I believe the point of preservation is to preserve. Homesteading a rainforest is not exactly perservation. If there's anything modern day monopoly capitalism can teach us, it's that preservation tends to be marginally profitable solely for PR reasons compared to ludicrous endeavors such as the tar sands or fracking."
I would agree with both these sentences. Even if preservation is not "profitable" I think both left and right anarchists should be almost forced to agree that radical decentralization is the best way for a community to tell what ought and ought not be preserved. As a free marketeer, the impotant qualifier I would add right now is that everything is waaaaay to centralized in this world to start to even begin to contemplate how any of this would shape out in the long run in a more decentralized society.
"Then I have absolutely no problem. My point is that the factory owner only maintains their control by the consent of the workers and/or the threat and use of force. There is absolutely no reason to believe you own something if you yourself cannot reasonably defend it"
A good way to think about this is all that exists is due to force, regardless of the situation. There is no voluntary or involuntary, there is only assertions of atomic facts. The laws are determined by the facts, not things. Nothing can be said in a void universally about the "oughts" of factory workers or factory owners. All that can be said is the atomic facts of individual human action - "factory workers" probably falls under the category of a metaphore or a tautology with little use. Everything that exists is "reasonable".
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
"A good way to think about this is all that exists is due to force, regardless of the situation. There is no voluntary or involuntary, there is only assertions of atomic facts. The laws are determined by the facts, not things. Nothing can be said in a void universally about the "oughts" of factory workers or factory owners. All that can be said is the atomic facts of individual human action - "factory workers" probably falls under the category of a metaphore or a tautology with little use. Everything that exists is 'reasonable.'"
I would agree with most of this. I trend towards occupancy and use because it relies much less on "external force," I suppose would be the phrase. That is, it does not require an auxillary force solely for the intent of defense. By "reasonably defend" I mean that barring a large group of people invading land that someone lays a claim to they can defend it. A large, organinzed take over is something anyone would have to worry about. In cases where occ/use types of owenrship have been practiced or semi-recognized have never, to my knowledge, encountered any kind of resistance outside of the state. It just seems to make more sense to me as a way people actually behave in regards to property.
"History, I'm afraid, is not on your side of that statement."
The free cities of the Hanseatic trading league. Medievil Ireland, City States of Northern Italy, Flanders, early days of US.
All the above were Anarchistic by having no State or very distant State, disputes were arbitraged and settled locally and voluntarily. All had strong cultures of protection of property rights in land and physical goods. All ecnomically prospered in comparison to neighbouring 'strong' states which practiced continual property violations against their subjects.
So here we have many examples, some lasting hundreds of years, where the individualistic culture of strong property rights kept the leviathan State at bay from forming.Now what examples can you show me of Stateless or minimal state Anarchism, that has persisted for any length of time with a culture of occ/use?
Birthday Pony:"All Pony has offered as a solution to conflict over property is that whoever is involved in the conflict will just get together and somehow work things out." Really? Me: "From a personal standpoint, I take an egoist view on the matter. If you hold more property than you yourself could reasonably defend then there's no reason to believe it's yours. One can defend their house, their workplace. Bands of people working together could reasonably defend their neighborhood." "No offence Birthday Pony, but your main problem communicating here is not the semantical definitions of Socialism and Capitalism, but your inability to differentiate between free-market capitalism and state-monopoly capitalism." Once again, my argument is not that wage labor in and of itself is necessarily bad, but that capitalism as I have defined it before is dependent on it, and the only way to maintain a large group of laborers willing to work in hierarchical positions as opposed to relatively equal positions is to control the means of production in such a way that it is their only reasonable option.
Really?
Me: "From a personal standpoint, I take an egoist view on the matter. If you hold more property than you yourself could reasonably defend then there's no reason to believe it's yours. One can defend their house, their workplace. Bands of people working together could reasonably defend their neighborhood."
"No offence Birthday Pony, but your main problem communicating here is not the semantical definitions of Socialism and Capitalism, but your inability to differentiate between free-market capitalism and state-monopoly capitalism."
Once again, my argument is not that wage labor in and of itself is necessarily bad, but that capitalism as I have defined it before is dependent on it, and the only way to maintain a large group of laborers willing to work in hierarchical positions as opposed to relatively equal positions is to control the means of production in such a way that it is their only reasonable option.
Birthday Pony:"If I was so steeped in Marxian class bias..." Who here is the Marxist? "Also be aware of this, the Anarchism you envision, with groups of individuals banding together to seize land and capital goods from others based on occ/use, will naturally lead to an institutionalized culture of even more seizure, violence and theft. In fact, the weak property rights theory of Anarchism will by it's nature lead to the exploitive and totalitarian state which Anarchists want to avoid." History, I'm afraid, is not on your side of that statement.
Who here is the Marxist?
"Also be aware of this, the Anarchism you envision, with groups of individuals banding together to seize land and capital goods from others based on occ/use, will naturally lead to an institutionalized culture of even more seizure, violence and theft. In fact, the weak property rights theory of Anarchism will by it's nature lead to the exploitive and totalitarian state which Anarchists want to avoid."
History, I'm afraid, is not on your side of that statement.
Birthday Pony:"But what if the workers have entered a contract/agreed with the factory owner that they shall only receive wages, and that the factory owner should own the means of production, i.e. make all decisions regarding the use of the means of production?" Then I have absolutely no problem. My point is that the factory owner only maintains their control by the consent of the workers and/or the threat and use of force. There is absolutely no reason to believe you own something if you yourself cannot reasonably defend it.
Then I have absolutely no problem. My point is that the factory owner only maintains their control by the consent of the workers and/or the threat and use of force. There is absolutely no reason to believe you own something if you yourself cannot reasonably defend it.
Birthday Pony:"They can acquire a rainforest, like any other land, through homesteading or purchase. Any owner can tell a logging company to stay off of their land. Whether the government will uphold the property right of the owner is another matter." Not to jump into another discussion, but that's a rather lame argument. I believe the point of preservation is to preserve. Homesteading a rainforest is not exactly perservation. If there's anything modern day monopoly capitalism can teach us, it's that preservation tends to be marginally profitable solely for PR reasons compared to ludicrous endeavors such as the tar sands or fracking.
Not to jump into another discussion, but that's a rather lame argument. I believe the point of preservation is to preserve. Homesteading a rainforest is not exactly perservation. If there's anything modern day monopoly capitalism can teach us, it's that preservation tends to be marginally profitable solely for PR reasons compared to ludicrous endeavors such as the tar sands or fracking.
I'm not familiar with every examle you provided, but I'd like to examine the few that I am...
"...City States of Northern Italy..."
City states were Anarchistic, eh? I'd like to see some elaboration on that.
"...early days of US..."
This one I'm quite familiar with, and in order to even begin to discuss it's merits you'd have to ignore some major violations of self-ownership and autonomy. Are you forgetting or just hoping that no one brings up that the early US economy, especially in the South, was widely dependent on slavery? And let's not forget the contractual acrobatics associated with indentured servitude, in which indentured servants could likely die during servitude, have their time extended at any time, and were often abused and beaten much like slaves. If we can deal with that, then maybe we can start talking about if the US was remotely Anarchistic. Most historians would say it was not.
"Now what examples can you show me of Stateless or minimal state Anarchism, that has persisted for any length of time with a culture of occ/use?"
Barcelona comes to mind, not because of its longevity, but because it kept almost every promise made by the Anarchist movement while fighting a multiple front war. The reason I believe it's a good example is that despite being under the pressure of warfare, the Anarchists in Barcelona still have incredibly few instances where they used force against themselves or dissenters if there are any. Were capitalist property rights violated? Yes. They most certainly were. But occ/use property rights were not. If you're argument is simply that occ/use is a violation of capitalist property rights, then you'll have no argument from me. I couldn't agree more. But to suggest it leads to widespread theft within itself is ludicrous. By the same token I could suggest that capitalist property rights lead to widespread violation of occ/use property, but that would be pointless and confusing.
More sustainable examples include the cooperative movement in Argentina, the rise of small independent time banks (very close to mutual banking itself), the (in)famous squatters movement in NYC of the 80's (12 of which still exist today) and across the globe in places such as Exarcheia, and Anglican adverese possession in common law. Squatting for political reasons or simply out of necessity is nothing new, and occ/use is the basis of it. It has been repressed by the state more than any other institution, yet continues to prosper as a tactic.
"Is it possible to control the means of production "in such a way" without government involvment/intervention in the marketplace, i.e. is there a difference between anarcho-/laissez-faire capitalism and the "capitalism" we have today?"
I am unsure. I use capitalism in the sense of capitalism as it exists right now. I have already explained why I don't think capitalism as such could exist in a market free from authoritarian institutions and social relations.
"So you think it`s alright that anyone with enough muscle/coerceive power(i.e. enough to topple whomever is defending something), to confiscate anything they want?"
I am not making a value judgement as such. My argument is that capitalism as such exists through state force and tacit consent. I am not arguing that people are necessarily justified in using muscle to seize land and/or capital in every instance, but only that without state force I'm guessing they would based on examples of the past.
"Can`t there be some value(profit) in just leaving the wilderness to it`s self, i.e. without human intervention/involvement?"
Let's not blur the lines between value and profit, just for the sake of a clear discussion. I would argue that there is value in leaving nature as it is, but not necessarily profit in terms of cash, commodities, or capital.
Homesteading is simply the means of acquring ownership. Preservation is a choice made by an individual. That certain production processes yield higher profits results from the preferences of individual consumers alone, on a free market.
Preservation only makes sense if a resource is to be preserved for a future market. If we are preserving resources "for a future generation," and that is the most moral action to take, then when that future generation arrives they must also preserve resources for a further future generation. The preservation agrument, as put forth by socialists is an argument to not use any resources ever.
"The preservation agrument, as put forth by socialists is an argument to not use any resources ever."
What is the preservation argument put forth by socialists? I think you'll find many conservation groups to be full of typically right-wing folks such as hunters that also belong to the NRA.
There you go. Anarchism in Barcelona, which lasted for not more than a handful of years. And small groups in Argentina fighting against the State, which is running the place like a mix between socialism and feudalism.
Is that the best you have?
My examples certainly were not perfect, to be sure, but they show the longevity of a social system that had a distant State, co-operatively local form of dispute arbitration, and respect for individual property rights.
I would say your preferred method of occ/use has been tried many times in our past but has not lasted more than a score of years or been recorded in the history books.
Why? Not liking empirical examples.......
1. The incentives to aquire property and capital via occ/use have been raised, while the incentive to work hard and forgoe consumption to create or purchase such property / capital have been lowered.
2. A culture that condones man to apropriate property based on occ/use will lead to a change in the character structure of society, a change that accepts such property rights violations as being just.
Responding to the incentive (1) there will be ever more groups looking to aquire property and capital by just their use of it. And due to changes in social norms (2) you will soon have various groups agitating for far more property rights violations, even those directly in contradiction to the original ideals of Anarchist occ/use.
The steps from here into a full blown socialism of all property and the rise of a dictatorial elite, will be quick.
You may argue that the ideal utopian man will not act like this. But here we deal with current reality......give man an inch and he will take a mile. Condone even slight variants of property rights violations, and man will find excuse to commit ever more.
"Anarchism in Barcelona, which lasted for not more than a handful of years."
Technically, it had been happening since the 1900's and was at its peak for a handful of years.
"And small groups in Argentina fighting against the State, which is running the place like a mix between socialism and feudalism."
What? First of all, there are probably now close to a hundred workers cooperatives in Buenos Aires. Second, where does this socialism and feudalism example come from?
"Responding to the incentive (1) there will be ever more groups looking to aquire property and capital by just their use of it. And due to changes in social norms (2) you will soon have various groups agitating for far more property rights violations, even those directly in contradiction to the original ideals of Anarchist occ/use."
Those would be hard to answer to, that is, if they had any reflection in reality at all. Why don't you explain how either of these played out in Barcelona or Buenos Aires, or how it has affected New York City.
I feel like we're discussing two separate realities. I am discussing pros and cons as they actually happened or are happening whereas you are listing off what are perhaps logical conclusions to draw, but that have little to no basis in reality as it is happening now.
"My examples certainly were not perfect, to be sure, but they show the longevity of a social system that had a distant State, co-operatively local form of dispute arbitration, and respect for individual property rights."
So you're just ignoring slavery and indentured servitude, and the fact that women couldn't own property in the US, and adverse possession in common law. You've got quite a filter there. Moreover you haven't answered to the fact of the Italian city states being medieval communes that functioned on partial democracy and partial feudalism. Your examples are not simply imperfect, they are bogus. You've simply picked a few societies that had longevity on their side, and then if they had a property system you like you've chalked their success up to that while ignoring the glaring flaws that were intrinsic to their stability.
"What? First of all, there are probably now close to a hundred workers cooperatives in Buenos Aires. Second, where does this socialism and feudalism example come from?"
Im saying the State itself in those areas is run like a mixture of Socialism and Feudalism. Those co-op groups are agitating for your method of social justice WITHIN that system. Once the State is removed, would they still abide by just apropriating land and capital from rich rentiers? Or move to a wholesale socialism of property? Or move to the anarcho-capitalist system of property rights? We do not know, and as such it is a poor example of just wishful future hopes.
"Those would be hard to answer to, that is, if they had any reflection in reality at all. Why don't you explain how either of these played out in Barcelona or Buenos Aires, or how it has affected New York City."
Regarding Barca and Buenos Aires, it has played out exactly as the logical deduction (2). A culture of collective Socialism regarding everyday property rights is heavily apparent in political discourse in those areas.
"So you're just ignoring slavery and indentured servitude, and the fact that women couldn't own property in the US, and adverse possession in common law. You've got quite a filter there. Moreover you haven't answered to the fact of the Italian city states being medieval communes that........."
As I said they are not perfect examples at all. I asked you to post any examples of partial anarchistic occ/use, and you still continously refer back to a few hundres collective squat ins of factories in Argentina as your best examples.
You may actually want to brush up on the real historical rise of european capitalism, how the workers and merchants escaped the feudal landlords and moved to these free cities. A place where they could work and trade voluntarily with each other without feudal bondage, and actually own their own property without fear of having it stolen by a monarch overlord. The anarchistic growth of these cities involved local dispute arbitration, and strong social respect for property rights, all crucial elements that led to long stability and prosperous economic growth.
Of course there was limited rights for women, and slavery, but these were products of the era, and it was the economic and social liberalization of these free societies that led to those attitudes being changed. So do not take them out of context to attack the validity of what occurred.
The lack of respect for property rights in land and capital would have stopped any of this human progress.
"Those co-op groups are agitating for your method of social justice WITHIN that system."
Ah, I see. So Anarcho-capitalism within statism is acceptable, but any other form of anarchism is not. Now I get it.
"You may actually want to brush up on the real historical rise of european capitalism, how the workers and merchants escaped the feudal landlords and moved to these free cities. A place where they could work and trade voluntarily with each other without feudal bondage, and actually own their own property without fear of having it stolen by a monarch overlord. The anarchistic growth of these cities involved local dispute arbitration, and strong social respect for property rights, all crucial elements that led to long stability and prosperous economic growth.
The lack of respect for property rights in land and capital would have stopped any of this human progress."
I have never seen someone be so entirely dismissive of something like slavery. You point to the US as an example of near ideal anarchism?
Property rights in the early states included protections for slave holders. I point to a few short-lived or still young examples, yet you point to the US during a time where slaves, servants, and peasants were barely any more free than they were under feudalism as your ideal! I'll take a handful of years before being crushed rather than a longterm society that still needs to abolish slavery.
You may actually want to double take at the early US economy. I went through high school, so I've heard your neoliberal version of history where supposedly free trade is the driving force behind everything happy and good. The fact of the matter is that the South was dependent on slave labor. Without slave labor, the southern economy would be radically different than it is now. States like Virginia were established as corporate states, aimed at making profit, and they were dependent upon cheap (or free) labor in order to prosper. The US economy and its continuation was based on respecting property rights and power relationships as they existed, not as they could be. After slavery, most African-Americans were kept economically dependent, and black farmers continue to face discrimination. One of your "imperfect" examples is one that was dependent upon a direct violation of self-ownership, the foundation of your philosophy(!).
And you want to talk about the rise of European city states? The ones that maintained lords and royal families? I will not argue that free trade didn't occur most of the time in Medieval city states. What I will argue is that their property rights looked anything like yours. Royal families could (and did) appropriate land at any time, tax as they saw fit, and continue to do most of what they did as feudal lords.
The best examples you can offer are not even 20th century. And they're examples in which slavery, no property rights for women, and fucking royalty were necessary for their day-to-day functions.
"Ah, I see. So Anarcho-capitalism within statism is acceptable, but any other form of anarchism is not. Now I get it."
The Argentine analogy I would give is the current Tea Party movement in the USA. Much talk about freedom and justice for the individual and property rights. But if they ever collectively took power they would immediately implement something very different to what they promote.
I would not presume to point at the Tea Party movement as a great example of how freedom and individual liberty will spring up in the absence of a State, because they are obviously closet Conservative Statists. Just like the Argentine co-ops will turn out to be Socialist Statists.
"I have never seen someone be so entirely dismissive of something like slavery. You point to the US as an example of near ideal anarchism?"
Firstly, it is not my near ideal at all, and secondly, your arguements are so pathetic you must continually bring up 3 paragraphs about slavery as if it somehow invalidates the previous points. To accept the reality of slavery as being a way of life during that era is not the same as to condone it.
So get of your horse of self-rightousness.
"And you want to talk about the rise of European city states? The ones that maintained lords and royal families? I will not argue that free trade didn't occur most of the time in Medieval city states. What I will argue is that their property rights looked anything like yours. Royal families could (and did) appropriate land at any time, tax as they saw fit, and continue to do most of what they did as feudal lords."
The period of time we are talking about was 18-19th century. And yes free trade did NOT occur, there was a system of Mercantalism in place, with caste and craft restrictions, with labor bonded to the land.
It was in this period of repression that led to peasants looking to escape the feudal fiefdoms. People moved to where the State was minimal or nonexistant, where they could be free to own property and work for themselves instead of a lord.
I already mentioned which areas in Europe this was. This was generally not under the exploiting lords, ladies and royal families you are referring to. That is why these fringe areas prospered, because of their anarchist type of governence and freedom, while the traditional areas under strong feudal control was left far behind economically and in respect for human rights.
I presume this is all new to you, it is not the European history that is taught in school, which usually glorifies the militarism of the various royal families, and promotes all progress as being the product of the State.
Somehow I don't see anything about the Enclosure Acts in here; a law which is generally regarded as the spark that tipped off the industrial revolution. But hey, when you accept a culture that defines history as it wishes, it is expected that you would define the Enclosure Acts as "peasants freely fleeing their oppressive states."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
"Somehow I don't see anything about the Enclosure Acts in here; a law which is generally regarded as the spark that tipped off the industrial revolution. But hey, when you accept a culture that defines history as it wishes, it is expected that you would define the Enclosure Acts as "peasants freely fleeing their oppressive states." I have not referring to, or mentioned England at all. Your point?
"the exploitation of the labour of others"
Ergo, if you make it, it belongs to you.
If you are paid to make it, you're employer has enslaved you and stolen your property.
Marx was all about logical fail wasn't he?
""Socialism's idea of voluntary is; we will take the money whether you make use of the goods and services or not. To me that is not voluntary, voluntary to me means voluntary payment." Which socialist anarchist advocated that? I defy you to find one who did."
Proudhon's refutation of interest is QED.
So you are referring to individual acts in which people independently escaped their oppressors within the statist system? I don't see how squatting is any less credible in that instance, since it has a long history, and there are squats far past their salad days across the globe. Your conclusions about Argentine coops are nothing more than baseless assumptions seeing as how the coop movement is also at the forefront of the anti-voting movement and almost exclusively gets repressed by the state, as opposed to the Tea Party who has yet to do anything outside of fundraising and protesting, and is obedient to the state.
Moreover, you have yet to show that the peasants that fled their feudal lords respected property beyond occ/use. Artisans owned their means of production. Peasants worked the land they lived on. They were fleeing lords of the land. How does that add up?
What is the preservation argument put forth by socialists?
The argument I was just paraphrasing. Maybe you didn't read the post.
I think you'll find many conservation groups to be full of typically right-wing folks such as hunters that also belong to the NRA.
Umm, I guess this is a marketing victory for the conservation groups?
While thinking of the 'Enclosure Acts', how about another piece of British feudalist exploitation, the 'Statute of Artificers'
CONTROLS UNDER ELIZABETH A few case studies will illustrate the nature of mercantilism, the reasons for mercantilist decrees, and some of the consequences that they brought to the economy. One important part of mercantilist policy was wage controls. In the fourteenth century, the Black Death killed one-third of the laboring population of England, and naturally brought sharp advances in wage rates. Wage controls came in as wage-ceilings, in desperate attempts by the ruling classes to coerce wage rates below their market rates. And since the vast bulk of employed laborers were agricultural workers, this was clearly legislation for the benefit of the feudal landlords and to the detriment of the workers. TEXTILES VS. AGRICULTURE
The result was a persistent shortage of agricultural and other unskilled laborers for centuries, a shortage mitigated by the fact that the English government did not try to enforce the laws very rigorously. When Queen Elizabeth tried to enforce the wage controls strictly, the agricultural labor shortage was aggravated, and the landlords found their statutory privileges defeated by the more subtle laws of the market. Consequently, Elizabeth passed, in 1563, the famous Statute of Artificers, imposing comprehensive labor control. Attempting to circumvent the shortage caused by previous interventions, the statute installed forced labor on the land. It provided that: (1) whoever had worked on the land until the age of 12 be compelled to remain there and not leave for work at any other trade; (2) all craftsmen, servants, and apprentices who had no great reputation in their fields be forced to harvest wheat; and (3) unemployed persons were compelled to work as agricultural laborers. In addition, the statute prohibited any worker from quitting his job unless he had a license proving that he had already been hired by another employer. And, furthermore, justices of the peace were ordered to set maximum wage rates, geared to changes in the cost of living. The statute also acted to restrict the growth of the woolen textile industry; this benefited two groups: the landlords, who would no longer lose laborers to industry and suffer the pressure of paying higher wage rates, and the textile industry itself, which received the privilege of keeping out the competition of new firms or new craftsmen. The coerced immobility of labor, however, led to suffering for all workers, including textile craftsmen; and to remedy the latter, Queen Elizabeth imposed a minimum wage law for textile craftsmen, thundering all the while that the wicked clothing manufacturers were responsible for the craftsmen’s plight. Fortunately, textile employers and workers persisted in agreeing on terms of employment below the artificially-set wage rate, and heavy textile unemployment did not yet arise. ENFORCING BAD LAWS The programs of wage controls could not cause undue dislocations until they were stringently enforced, and this came to pass under King James I, the first Stuart king of England. Upon assuming the throne in 1603, James decided to enforce the Elizabethan control program with great stringency, including extremely heavy penalties against employers. Rigorous enforcement was imposed on minimum wage controls for textile craftsmen, and on maximum wage decrees for agricultural laborers and servants. The consequences were the inevitable result of tampering with the laws of the market: chronic severe unemployment throughout the textile industry, coupled with a chronic severe shortage of agricultural labor. Misery and discontent spread throughout the land. Citizens were fined for paying their servants more than ceiling wages, and servants fined for accepting the pay. James, and his son Charles I, decided to stem the tide of unemployment in textiles by compelling employers to remain in business even when they were losing money. But even though many employers were jailed for infractions, such Draconian measures could not keep the textile industry from depression, stagnation, and unemployment. Certainly the consequences of the policy of wage controls was one of the reasons for the overthrow of the Stuart tyranny in the mid-seventeenth century. Murray N. Rothbard
Shit, I can't directly respond!
*searches for passage to copy/paste on quasi-related subject*
What exactly is your point?
Im bored and it is off point. Relating to earlier discussion about royal and feudal exploitation of the commoners.
Great. So if one individual decides that chopping down the Amazon rainforest is more pofitable than regrowing a forest he already chopped down, he's free to do so? Of course it won't benefit anyone when all of the forests have been cut down, but it will make sense in the short term for an individual acting in his own self-interest. Ironically, it's propertarian logic that will lead to the greatest "Tragedy of the Commons" of them all!
Birthday Pony:Proudhon was one of the first to use the term in it's modern sense, and although he's not the final word on the matter, since then capitalism has more or less been used to mean a system of property in which the means of production are owned privately such that the owner may charge rent, interest and employ others for a wage. Aside from Austrians, that is the common definition. Even wikipedia has a similar definition, although it's by no means an authority on the matter: "Capitalismis an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those. In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by those who provide the capital."
How does any of this prove any truth in defining "capitalism" one way or another? The answer is: it doesn't. All you're doing above is appealing to the majority.
Birthday Pony:Defining it simply as "voluntary trade" may cause self-styled anti-capitalists to be recieved with knee jerk reactions, it creates an historical dichotomy between capitalism as voluntary trade and capitalism as self-styled anti-authoritarian socialists meant it (which means one would have to figure out what they mean anyway).
Can you please explain what you mean by "historical dichotomy"? Regardless of how you define it, though, why is the existence of a "historical dichotomy" necessarily a bad thing? Furthermore, how does any of this invalidate my original point?
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and ask this: why must self-styled anti-capitalists not be received with knee-jerk reactions, as you seem to imply?
Birthday Pony:Then again, I could be discussing boating. I find it funny that when I do it, it's mockery, but when you do it it's logically correct because of the arbitrainess of language. Sometimes, I use absurdity to make a point. *shrug*
I think it's mockery when you do it because, as far as I can tell, you don't really believe what you're saying. That is, I think you're being dishonest when you do it. Now why would you be dishonest like this? The only reason I can think of is to simply (try to) get me to back down.
Birthday Pony:I wish most anarchist terms were mainstream. They are not, and I wish I could say that the definition of capitalism I've provided really belonged exclusively to anarchists. It, however, does not.
Okay, so what? How does this invalidate my point?
Birthday Pony:I haven't even had time to do that. I've been busy clearing up misconceptions about self-styled socialists. Honestly, I really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism. The only exposure I've had is through anti-capitalists, so I really do want to see where it comes from. Unfortunately, the second you mention socialism it turns into some kind of bloodfeud. People here have claimed that all socialists are collectivists, all socialists are authoritarian, that socialism requires people to be thoughtless conformist drones, while what have I said of capitalism? Nothing other than tried to define it in a way that isn't tied up in socialism being its antithesis. I have not started whining about exploitation. I haven't started telling everyone they're oppressive (I don't believe anyone here is), but what do I get for just suggesting that socialism can be voluntary? Where has that got me and what does that really say about this board?
Honestly, I really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism. The only exposure I've had is through anti-capitalists, so I really do want to see where it comes from. Unfortunately, the second you mention socialism it turns into some kind of bloodfeud. People here have claimed that all socialists are collectivists, all socialists are authoritarian, that socialism requires people to be thoughtless conformist drones, while what have I said of capitalism? Nothing other than tried to define it in a way that isn't tied up in socialism being its antithesis. I have not started whining about exploitation. I haven't started telling everyone they're oppressive (I don't believe anyone here is), but what do I get for just suggesting that socialism can be voluntary? Where has that got me and what does that really say about this board?
Quite frankly, I think it says that we're suspicious of self-styled anti-capitalists' motives. Whether you think that suspicion is justified or not is your problem, isn't it?
If you really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism, yet you refuse to consider any anarcho-capitalist's reasoning on this issue as valid, what does that say about your stated intention?
Birthday Pony:Anyway, let's go on the classical liberal note. If it derived from classical liberal premises, I see two points of divergence from traditional anarchism. First, classical anarchists and liberals were divided amongst class lines. Whereas anarchists were concerned with the liberation of the working poor and peasants, liberals were concerned with the liberation of the entreprenuer, both from monarchy, a blurry distinction today but it carried much weight then. Second, liberals were not necessarily anti-state. Even Molinari used the term government when talking about competing defense associations.
I hate to sound like Reagan, of all people, but see, there you go again. You claim to be asking for how anarcho-capitalists see their movement as relating to what you call "anarchism", yet when one of them (such as myself) provides an answer, you apparently feel the need to argue against it. If you were really just curious about what anarcho-capitalists think in this regard, wouldn't you simply thank the anarcho-capitalist for his input and move on? What am I missing here? It's statements like your paragraph above that indicate to me that your real goal is to protect the "sanctity" of what you call "anarchism" against the "contamination" of anarcho-capitalism.
Birthday Pony:Now, I'm not trying to say "shut up because you don't adhere to the traditional authorities! What is Property? is the bible and Proudhon is king!" What I am trying to do is simply fill myself in just so I am better informed. If I just wanted to ya'll to hang yourselves with your own words, I would be done here. I don't mean to be insulting when I say that, I'm just saying that most folks have openly disassociated themselves with traditional and contemporary anarchism, save for the namesake of anarcho-capitalism.
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that you're again implying that "anarcho-capitalism" is not "anarchist", therefore the "anarcho-" part of the label should be dropped, at the very least. Once again, it's all aesthetics.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
"How does any of this prove any truth in defining "capitalism" one way or another? The answer is: it doesn't. All you're doing above is appealing to the majority...Can you please explain what you mean by "historical dichotomy"? Regardless of how you define it, though, why is the existence of a "historical dichotomy" necessarily a bad thing? Furthermore, how does any of this invalidate my original point?"
Have you missed the thousands of times I've given up my definition? Also, as I'd like to point out, you're not wrong. Definitions come about by the way the majority uses them. Language, as a device that needs to be interpreted, is most functional when a majority of people are vaguely on the same page as one another. This doesn't mean that you can't have your own definition of words, it just means you should probably expect difficulty discussing. None of this invalidates your point. It just goes to show you're being ridiculous.
Why is a historical dichotomy bad?
"(I said):it creates an historical dichotomy between capitalism as voluntary trade and capitalism as self-styled anti-authoritarian socialists meant it (which means one would have to figure out what they mean anyway)."
Your definition is fine, but to analyze the Anarchist movement we would still have to draw lines between this and that group. Are you wrong? No. You're just ineffective at communicating.
"Now I'm going to go out on a limb and ask this: why must self-styled anti-capitalists not be received with knee-jerk reactions, as you seem to imply?"
Well, if you're interested in actually understanding someone, then you probably shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to their ideas. You should hear them out. I came here hoping to learn something. While I have learned a bit about anarcho-capitalism, for the most part I have only discovered every stereotype about ancaps that I've heard to be completely true.
"I think it's mockery when you do it because, as far as I can tell, you don't really believe what you're saying. That is, I think you're being dishonest when you do it. Now why would you be dishonest like this? The only reason I can think of is to simply (try to) get me to back down."
Well, you have no way of ever knowing what my definitions for words are, so you can't really ever know that with certainty. The reason I did it is to show you how frustrating it is to use the argument you've been using, especially after I have said multiple times that I will agree to use capitalism as it is described here. I haven't been saying you're quantifiable, undoubtedly wrong. I've been saying the way you define capitalism is contrary to other Anarchists. And I've asked why. And I've gotten answers. I've learned even from that discussion.
If we want to talk about using the arbitrary nature of language disengenously, then let's be real. After a widely accepted and used definition of capitalism has developed anarcho-capitalists invent a new one that make it look like anyone who opposes capitalism must be a freedom hating idiot. And who's being dishonest?
"Quite frankly, I think it says that we're suspicious of self-styled anti-capitalists' motives. Whether you think that suspicion is justified or not is your problem, isn't it?"
I couldn't actually care less. It says more about you than it does about me.
"If you really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism, yet you refuse to consider any anarcho-capitalist's reasoning on this issue as valid, what does that say about your stated intention?"
In all honesty I came here looking for discussion. When I pointed out problems I had with arguments or definitions I got no response other than essentially, "well, you're wrong and we're right," with no further explanation. I accept that you have a different definition of capitalism, as far as why, no one has answered beyond asserting how right they are and how much of a Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Emotion Feminist/everything bad an impure in the world I am.
"If you were really just curious about what anarcho-capitalists think in this regard, wouldn't you simply thank the anarcho-capitalist for his input and move on?"
I would look for clarification for things I don't understand, which is all I have done. When folks say, "socialism requires a state," that's obviously not a generally agreeable statement to the larger anarchist movement. So I ask them what they mean and explain why I am having trouble with that answer.
"Once again, it's all aesthetics."
I'm not contesting that. I wanted to see if there was a relationship between ancap-ism and the broader movement that wasn't antagonistic. Apparently there's not. I only wonder why ancaps have created rhetoric that divirges so much from their namesake, but it seems pretty obvious at this point.
Birthday Pony:Have you missed the thousands of times I've given up my definition? Also, as I'd like to point out, you're not wrong. Definitions come about by the way the majority uses them. Language, as a device that needs to be interpreted, is most functional when a majority of people are vaguely on the same page as one another. This doesn't mean that you can't have your own definition of words, it just means you should probably expect difficulty discussing. None of this invalidates your point. It just goes to show you're being ridiculous.
How am I being "ridiculous", exactly? I haven't even insisted on a particular definition for "capitalism" at all. For some odd reason, you keep thinking I've been somehow arguing in favor of defining capitalism as "voluntary trade" rather than some other way. Again, I haven't. Why do you keep thinking that?
Does a majority of people have to start using a certain definition for a certain word in order for you (or anyone else) to understand it?
Birthday Pony:Why is a historical dichotomy bad? "(I said):it creates an historical dichotomy between capitalism as voluntary trade and capitalism as self-styled anti-authoritarian socialists meant it (which means one would have to figure out what they mean anyway)." Your definition is fine, but to analyze the Anarchist movement we would still have to draw lines between this and that group. Are you wrong? No. You're just ineffective at communicating.
Apparently you understand me pretty well, so how exactly am I ineffective at communicating? Regardless, I already accepted your point that defining "capitalism" simply as "voluntary trade" would seemingly erase most distinctions between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists - except that the two groups have different property theories. IIRC, you didn't accept that for some reason (probably aesthetic).
Birthday Pony:Well, if you're interested in actually understanding someone, then you probably shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to their ideas. You should hear them out. I came here hoping to learn something. While I have learned a bit about anarcho-capitalism, for the most part I have only discovered every stereotype about ancaps that I've heard to be completely true.
I agree with you, actually, about not having a knee-jerk reaction to someone if you're interested in actually understanding him. I asked that question just to better see where you were coming from. But it can be hard to want to understand someone when it seems like he comes in and starts attacking, however subtly, everyone else in the forum. On the other hand, I honestly don't condone knee-jerk responses to anyone who's new in a forum, no matter what his beliefs are.
Birthday Pony:Well, you have no way of ever knowing what my definitions for words are, so you can't really ever know that with certainty.
That's true, of course. And I understand that I make many assumptions about your (and others') definitions for words. When they point out that one or more of my assumptions are wrong, I gladly stand corrected.
On the other hand, I did write "as far as I can tell". That leaves open the possibility that I'm wrong about what you meant.
Birthday Pony:The reason I did it is to show you how frustrating it is to use the argument you've been using, especially after I have said multiple times that I will agree to use capitalism as it is described here. I haven't been saying you're quantifiable, undoubtedly wrong. I've been saying the way you define capitalism is contrary to other Anarchists. And I've asked why. And I've gotten answers. I've learned even from that discussion.
I know you made that agreement. But you turned right around and claimed that that definition led to an apparent contradiction, namely that anti-capitalists would then be capitalists. I've tried many times to show you how that's not actually a contradiction, and every time I've done this, you've acted like we're in some kind of pissing contest and have tried to get "one up" on me because you can't stand the aesthetic notion that one of your beloved anti-capitalists could be called a "capitalist" under a certain definition thereof. That's why I accuse you of trying to somehow get me to back down.
Birthday Pony:If we want to talk about using the arbitrary nature of language disengenously, then let's be real. After a widely accepted and used definition of capitalism has developed anarcho-capitalists invent a new one that make it look like anyone who opposes capitalism must be a freedom hating idiot. And who's being dishonest?
It's things like this which betray your stated understanding that definitions are arbitrary. If you honestly understood that, you wouldn't call anarcho-capitalists "dishonest" because of the definition of "capitalism" that they typically use. Or maybe we even have different definitions for "dishonest" - I'm not sure.
Birthday Pony:"Quite frankly, I think it says that we're suspicious of self-styled anti-capitalists' motives. Whether you think that suspicion is justified or not is your problem, isn't it?" I couldn't actually care less. It says more about you than it does about me.
Again with the pissing contest. "I know you are, but what am I???" But fine, I'll bite. So do tell - how does it say more about me than it does about you?
Birthday Pony:In all honesty I came here looking for discussion. When I pointed out problems I had with arguments or definitions I got no response other than essentially, "well, you're wrong and we're right," with no further explanation. I accept that you have a different definition of capitalism, as far as why, no one has answered beyond asserting how right they are and how much of a Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Emotion Feminist/everything bad an impure in the world I am.
For the nth time, the problems you pointed out with definitions were not logical problems with them - they were aesthetic problems that you had with them. That is, the definitions anarcho-capitalists use run contrary to your aesthetics. Now that's all fine, but it has nothing to do with logic. So I certainly believe that I haven't simply said "you're wrong and we're right". I feel like I've been trying to do much more than that.
When did you ask why anyone defines "capitalism" as "voluntary trade"? I don't recall you ever doing that, but I could be wrong.
Birthday Pony:"If you were really just curious about what anarcho-capitalists think in this regard, wouldn't you simply thank the anarcho-capitalist for his input and move on?" I would look for clarification for things I don't understand, which is all I have done. When folks say, "socialism requires a state," that's obviously not a generally agreeable statement to the larger anarchist movement. So I ask them what they mean and explain why I am having trouble with that answer.
Here's an example. You asked for clarification on the apparent contradiction that, if one defines "capitalism" as "voluntary trade", then self-styled anti-capitalists would be capitalists. So I decided to try to help you. I did that by pointing out that it's not a contradiction at all. What have I gotten in return? Nothing but emotional pushback, it seems. Apparently my help has been too emotionally painful for you to accept. I'm sorry about that.
Birthday Pony:"Once again, it's all aesthetics." I'm not contesting that. I wanted to see if there was a relationship between ancap-ism and the broader movement that wasn't antagonistic. Apparently there's not. I only wonder why ancaps have created rhetoric that divirges so much from their namesake, but it seems pretty obvious at this point.
I'm glad you're finally not contesting that it's all aesthetics on your part. I only wish you could see that aesthetics have nothing whatsoever to do with logic. While I've tried to show you how this is the case, there's only so much I can do. Hell, I even explained how anarcho-capitalism follows from the classical liberal tradition, and you claimed (as far as I can tell) that therefore anarcho-capitalists are actually statists in disguise!
You're ineffective at communicating in that you cannot perceive what others mean when they use certain words. Or else you are just making it needlessly difficult for them.
"Regardless, I already accepted your point that defining "capitalism" simply as "voluntary trade" would seemingly erase most distinctions between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists - except that the two groups have different property theories. IIRC, you didn't accept that for some reason (probably aesthetic)."
Except that I DID. Multiple times. Regardless of how you define capitalism, I said a billion and five times that I'll take the definition offered. Now what? Then the answer I got was, "well, we don't really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist." Now I'm wondering why anarcho-capitalists continue to label themselves as anarchists when they have little to no relationship with any other anarchist philosophy, and why they have such a radically different definition of capitalism than everyone else.
"But you turned right around and claimed that that definition led to an apparent contradiction, namely that anti-capitalists would then be capitalists."
First of all, my definition of contradiction could be radically different from yours such that I have been logically and infallibly correct this whole time, if we want to follow your arguments about language being arbitrary. I can say X leads to a contradiction and not be wrong as long as my definition of contradiction is not the one commonly held by you (and most people). But beyond that, I've raised concerns about why that accepting that definition is confusing and that even though language is arbitrary it still has real life consequences. Monarchists used to use the word "democracy" in a way that was synonymous with social and political chaos and disorder. So when they said things like, "democrats are trying to bring society into disorder," they weren't logically wrong. They were however misrepresenting what democrats thought, and they were affecting how their audience viewed self-styled democrats. That kind of misrepresentation is my number one concern.
"So do tell - how does it say more about me than it does about you?"
It says your suspicious. It doesn't say anything about me other than you are suspicious of me.
"the problems you pointed out with definitions were not logical problems with them - they were aesthetic problems that you had with them."
And for the millionth time those aesthetic concerns of mine still have consequences! Does that definition not lead to misrepresentation? Is misrepresentation not a bad thing when it comes to honest, civil discourse?
"Hell, I even explained how anarcho-capitalism follows from the classical liberal tradition, and you claimed (as far as I can tell) that therefore anarcho-capitalists are actually statists in disguise!"
I have not called anyone here a statist. What I've said is that classical liberals we're statists and developed in opposition to anarchists. Doesn't it seem reasonable then to call yourself a radical liberal or anti-state liberal?
"I only wish you could see that aesthetics have nothing whatsoever to do with logic."
I only wish you could see that logic has so very little to do with real life. Throughout most of modern history we see people conquering others, the conquerors always with logic and reason on their side, colonizing the irrational for their own good.
FYI, Birthday Pony, we know you're rolling your eyes at us here. Please know that you will not be banned by virtue of you "getting through" to anyone. Despite what people have told you, that's not how we operate. Keep things civil and respectful, and we welcome your challenges and questions.
Fool on the Hill:You're ineffective at communicating in that you cannot read people's minds.
Ah, so that's the explanation. So sorry. I guess we all can't be so lucky.
Birthday Pony:Except that I DID. Multiple times. Regardless of how you define capitalism, I said a billion and five times that I'll take the definition offered. Now what? Then the answer I got was, "well, we don't really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist." Now I'm wondering why anarcho-capitalists continue to label themselves as anarchists when they have little to no relationship with any other anarchist philosophy, and why they have such a radically different definition of capitalism than everyone else.
Can you prove that literally everyone else has a radically different definition of "capitalism" than anarcho-capitalists? Otherwise, if you didn't mean "everyone else" literally, why are you being so sloppy with your words (to put it bluntly) in a debate?
I'm sorry, but I find it darkly hilarious that you'd say the only further answer you got was "Well, we don't really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist." My understanding (however flawed it may be) is that "the broader anarchist movement" also derived from the classical liberal tradition. At the very least, therefore, anarcho-capitalism and "the broader anarchist movement" share a common origin. If I'm wrong here, please point it out.
Anarcho-capitalists use "anarcho-" because they oppose the state. It's that simple. Why you guys are trying to claim and hold a monopoly on the word "anarchist" is beyond me (aside from aesthetic reasons).
Birthday Pony:First of all, my definition of contradiction could be radically different from yours such that I have been logically and infallibly correct this whole time, if we want to follow your arguments about language being arbitrary.
That's certainly possible, and I wouldn't argue against it. But two things: 1) I still don't think you actually understand (or are willing to admit to) the fact that language is arbitrary, and 2) even if you did, I'd consider it dishonest for you to not stipulate your definition of "contradiction" if you thought it would be radically different from mine. Keep in mind that, every time I've come to suspect you of using a different definition for a word from my own, I've explicitly asked you what your definition for that word is.
Birthday Pony:I can say X leads to a contradiction and not be wrong as long as my definition of contradiction is not the one commonly held by you (and most people).
To be clear, you can say "X leads to a contradiction" and not be logically invalid. It wouldn't have the same meaning as when I say "X leads to a contradiction."
Birthday Pony:But beyond that, I've raised concerns about why that accepting that definition is confusing and that even though language is arbitrary it still has real life consequences. Monarchists used to use the word "democracy" in a way that was synonymous with social and political chaos and disorder. So when they said things like, "democrats are trying to bring society into disorder," they weren't logically wrong. They were however misrepresenting what democrats thought, and they were affecting how their audience viewed self-styled democrats. That kind of misrepresentation is my number one concern.
I'd say they were actually using "disorder" in a way that was synonymous with "the establishment of democracy". Of course, they expected that their audiences would still be defining "disorder" as something like "chaos, death, and destruction", which would lead them to associate democrats with those things. So the question now is, where do you see anarcho-capitalists as literally trying to deceive people?
Birthday Pony:It says your suspicious. It doesn't say anything about me other than you are suspicious of me.
The not-so-hidden implication in your statement, if I may be so bold, is that I shouldn't be suspicious (of you), and that being suspicious (of you) is therefore a bad thing. Do I have it right? If so, maybe you'd like to explain yourself further. I, for one, see nothing wrong or bad with being suspicious, either in general or of you specifically.
Birthday Pony:And for the millionth time those aesthetic concerns of mine still have consequences! Does that definition not lead to misrepresentation? Is misrepresentation not a bad thing when it comes to honest, civil discourse?
Let me refer to the example above about monarchists vs. democrats. The monarchists who implicitly re-defined "disorder" as "the establishment of democracy" were therefore equivocating over the definition of the word "disorder" when they expected their audiences to hold to the more common definition of "disorder". Equivocation, of course, is a logical fallacy. So if you're talking about misrepresentation, you're talking about equivocation, and therefore you're talking about a logical fallacy - which of course has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with aesthetics. Telling us, in effect, to stop using the term "anarcho-capitalist" because you don't like associating the word "anarchism" with the word "capitalism" has nothing to do with misrepresentation, as far as I can tell. So which is it? Are you talking about misrepresentation, and therefore logic, or are you talking about aesthetics?
Birthday Pony:I have not called anyone here a statist. What I've said is that classical liberals we're statists and developed in opposition to anarchists. Doesn't it seem reasonable then to call yourself a radical liberal or anti-state liberal?
Translation: doesn't it seem reasonable then to stop calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist?
Again, didn't "the broader anarchist movement" develop from the classical liberal movement? Or am I mistaken? But regardless, why must any of us care whether we're using a label in exactly the same way as those who originally used it? Do you really expect to change anyone's behavior around here?
Birthday Pony:I only wish you could see that logic has so very little to do with real life. Throughout most of modern history we see people conquering others, the conquerors always with logic and reason on their side, colonizing the irrational for their own good.
More pissing-contest tit-for-tat, I see. To directly address your point, though, it seems to me that you're basically saying "Screw logic!" If so, I applaud your candor. But in that case, the debate is over, by your forefeit.
"Can you prove that literally everyone else has a radically different definition of "capitalism" than anarcho-capitalists? Otherwise, if you didn't mean "everyone else" literally, why are you being so sloppy with your words (to put it bluntly) in a debate?"
1. I meant other anarchists.
2. No, I can't ask every single one of them individually. Still, I have a feeling you know what question I was asking.
"I'm sorry, but I find it darkly hilarious that you'd say the only further answer you got was "Well, we don't really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist." My understanding (however flawed it may be) is that "the broader anarchist movement" also derived from the classical liberal tradition. At the very least, therefore, anarcho-capitalism and "the broader anarchist movement" share a common origin. If I'm wrong here, please point it out."
The broader anarchist movement developed at the same time as liberals. With folks who didn't like liberals and liberals who didn't like them. Different circles.
"So the question now is, where do you see anarcho-capitalists as literally trying to deceive people?"
I do not know the intent of the following instances, but there's a few just on this thread that are misinformed or disingenuous to the point of misrepresentation to anyone unfamiliar with the self-styled anti-capitalsts I am citing:
"The best way I have seen it defined was by Hans Herman Hoppe where the system of capitalism is the respect for and upholding of private property while socialism is marked by systemic transgressions against private property."
"Socialists don't accept voluntary trade."
"You can't change nature honey. Get over it." (I just found this a bit paternalistic and degrading. Thought I'd throw it in anyway.)
"The problem is that Socialism does not allow for voluntary involvement."
That is just from page 1.
"The not-so-hidden implication in your statement, if I may be so bold, is that I shouldn't be suspicious (of you), and that being suspicious (of you) is therefore a bad thing. Do I have it right? If so, maybe you'd like to explain yourself further. I, for one, see nothing wrong or bad with being suspicious, either in general or of you specifically."
No. The implication was exactly what it started as. It says something about you, not me. I'm not making a value judgement on it.
"Let me refer to the example above about monarchists vs. democrats. The monarchists who implicitly re-defined "disorder" as "the establishment of democracy" were therefore equivocating over the definition of the word "disorder" when they expected their audiences to hold to the more common definition of "disorder". Equivocation, of course, is a logical fallacy. So if you're talking about misrepresentation, you're talking about equivocation, and therefore you're talking about a logical fallacy - which of course has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with aesthetics. Telling us, in effect, to stop using the term "anarcho-capitalist" because you don't like associating the word "anarchism" with the word "capitalism" has nothing to do with misrepresentation, as far as I can tell. So which is it? Are you talking about misrepresentation, and therefore logic, or are you talking about aesthetics?"
I haven't actually said that folks here should call themselves anything. All of my challenges have still been digging, asking more, or just challenging a definition. It doesn't keep me up at night knowing people who disagree with me call themselves Anarchists. All I wonder is why? I just want info. Now, what you've just said seems to negate your entire point about language being arbitrary. In one instance there's equivocation and in another language has no root in what it represents. Let's say I am talking about the equivocation of "capitalism" with "voluntary trade". What would you have to say to that? Keep in mind, however, I don't understand how you're reconciling your past statements with what you're saying now. Isn't every instance we've discussed equivocation?
"Translation: doesn't it seem reasonable then to stop calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist?"
Doesn't it? Now where I go from here isn't to just say, "okay then, stop. you're wrong." It's obvious to me that people do call themselves anarcho-capitalists. My question would be why?
"But regardless, why must any of us care whether we're using a label in exactly the same way as those who originally used it?"
I don't think anyone does that. I have an understanding of where other anarchists come from. I don't have an understanding of anarcho-capitalism. That's why I am only asking you.
So, why do you use the term anarcho-capitalist (if you do)?
"FYI, Birthday Pony, we know you're rolling your eyes at us here. Please know that you will not be banned by virtue of you "getting through" to anyone. Despite what people have told you, that's not how we operate. Keep things civil and respectful, and we welcome your challenges and questions."
Teehee. :)
I admit that I was disingenous about my unfamiliarity with Anarchism, but based on what I've been told, I think it was wise to come in as a noob. What I have not been disingenuous about is my lack of familiarity with anarcho-capitalism. And I would rather directly engage than just hear it from so-and-so. Although, I'd expect you to take this all with a grain of salt, I'm being honest at this point.
As for me rolling my eyes, I invite anyone who is interested to mosey on over to FLL and address any criticism that the posters there have of this board. I used FLL to roll my eyes because it would be pretty rude to come here just to tell everyone how ridiculous I think they are. And despite a lot of the sillyness happening there, there are still some rather good points.
I don't understand how they define capitalism as the default economic system. Capitalism is at best 200 years old in the states, and slightly older in Europe. It's been the dominant system for even shorter a time.
Have you considered the possibility that we're not talking about whatever corporatist/mercantilist/protectionist/statist caricature of capitalism you have in mind? Capitalism - no matter how this word is used by university professors and "industrialist scumfucks" (h/t to the late Bill Hicks) - refers to the social norms by which people come to own previously unowned resources (by putting them to use) and how people voluntarily exchange property with one another. Since the scumfuck-definition of "capitalism" is so predominant, I'm more than happy to banish the use of that word from the discussion in order to debate the content of capital theory. Please tell me what is wrong with assigning ownership on the basis of first use. Please, tell me what is wrong with saying that all and only voluntary exchanges of property constitute legitimate transfer of ownership from one person to another? Or perhaps you have a problem with the idea of ownership (rightful claim to possession, that is, rightful claim to exclusive use) itself? But more important than whether there's something wrong with these ideas, please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that these are not and have not been for at least the duration of recorded history the dominant social norms regarding the problems of ownership and property.
Clayton -
According to Merriam Webster:
Definition of ANARCHY - absence of government
Origin of ANARCHY - Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- First Known Use: 1539
Definition of CAPITALISM -: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Origin of CAPITAL - French or Italian; French, from Italian capitale, from capitale, adjective, chief, principal, from Latin capitalis (see 2capital) - First Known Use: circa 1639 (Capi I believe came from heads of sheep?)
Makes a little sense to me? Due to the negative associations of the word Anarchy, e.g. anarchy=chaos, disorder, riots, destruction of property, masked punks with circle As, etc., and my respect for for the non-aggression principle, I prefer the term voluntarism which doesn't accurately describe the pholosophy but has much better potential of getting ones foot into the door of a closed mind.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
At this point in history, this is mostly moot discussion because almost all natural resources are under the control of either private owners or governments. If we were considering privatization of US forest lands, for example, an obviously wrong solution would be to open the borders and say "the first to mow down a stand of trees owns it." Since the US government exercises control over these lands, it is the de facto owner of them. The US government also has a pretty serious debt problem. One way to improve the state of affairs would be to auction off all public lands and use the revenues to pay down the debt (to private bondholders only, the Federal Reserve can get bent).
Would private owners who acquired new tree stands through auction of public lands lay waste to those tree stands? Well, if they're a damn fool, maybe. But most of the buyers of tree stands would not be damn fools and would not lay waste to their tree stands and would instead do the thing that is in their own self-interest: preserve their capital value.
The same reasoning can be applied to all the government-controlled resources of the world. If you are an environmentalist or generally concerned that natural resources should be maintained in a responsible manner, then you should be pro-private ownership of all natural resources. Setting up a system where nobody has a material interest in maintaining the value of resources guarantees that those resources will be squandered and neglected.
"Please tell me what is wrong with assigning ownership on the basis of first use. Please, tell me what is wrong with saying that all and only voluntary exchanges of property constitute legitimate transfer of ownership from one person to another? Or perhaps you have a problem with the idea of ownership (rightful claim to possession, that is, rightful claim to exclusive use) itself? But more important than whether there's something wrong with these ideas, please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that these are not and have not been for at least the duration of recorded history the dominant social norms regarding the problems of ownership and property."
These are not things I necessarily have a problem with, nor would they be what I see as the definitive characterisitic of capitalism.
Clayton, I invite you over to FLL if you'd like to discuss these things. As it stands, there's already so many discussions happening in this thread alone that I am not interested in discussing them. I am one of the few anti-capitalists here and am quite tired of explaining the same things over again to multiple people asking the same thing a different way. If you're interested, then come on over to FLL. There are many people that are much smarter than me that can help answer any of those questions.
I prefer the term voluntarism which doesn't accurately describe the pholosophy but has much better potential of getting ones foot into the door of a closed mind.
I don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism", either. I think it obscures more than it clarifies. I'm not sure why the label keeps getting used.
Okay then. This thread was not mean to be a trollish anti-capitalist one in a capitalist dominated board. Any concerns with anti-capitalists are probably better addressed to them. And like I said, I'm so worn out from defending myself here I would probably do a shitty job explaining myself to people who agree with me at this point.
All I will say, is that the idea of "first use" is fine on face value. First use implying infinite control runs in contradicition to how a multitude of societies functioned. Moreover, what qualifies as "use" differs as well. Despite what folks have said on other threads, there are still indigineous people in North America that claim "unused" land. And there have been times when the government (I'm speaking of Canada) tries to "use" land they claim is theirs. And they have resisted. And they have one.
Jesus, I realize I'm way late to the game, but after reading pages and pages of this debate, isn't the difference between Pony and AnCaps obvious? It's simply her definition of *property*.
Everything else is the same: she's against the state, she's for any voluntary association, she's against force... But come on, if you think about what we do, we advocate that people not initiate force *against person or property*. That advocacy does not, unfortunately, explicitly *define* "property". AnCaps then go on to define property - let's recall that all such definitions are not the same even amongst AnCaps, but they are at least pretty close - but can't we at least open our minds a *little* to at least consider and, most likely, ultimately reject, Pony's definition of "property" in an objective, facts-based way? Of all the people that are going to come here looking for discussion, I think one that is really only disagreeing with a single "definition" is easiest to have a fruitful conversation with...
So maybe we should focus on talking about the pluses and minuses of the two definitions of "property". To imply that there is some Platonic, perfect defintion of property just floating in the aether that we are to "find" is silly: clearly, property does not exist in a world with one person, or in a world of no scarcity. Property is a social convention, and there is value in comparing and contrasting different possible social conventions.