[Foreward note: This was also posted at an anarchist forum dominated by socialists. The reaction largely consisted of mockery. I'm curious if most anarcho-capitalists would likewise be uncomfortable with what I consider to be the inherently diverse and pluralist result of consistantly applied anarchism]
All conflicts between people’s personal preferances are resolved through free association. This includes conflicts between how people want to organize economically or otherwise. An anarchist society is a highly complex and pluralist (polycentric) society, not a singular or monocentric model. Not a uniform society. An anarchist society is a spontaneous order resulting from free association (and by extention, free competition). When people are free to voluntarily associate and disassociate into different groups and forms of organization, theoretically any preferance is possible and may co-exist peacefully side by side (primitivism, feminism, racism, socialism, capitalism, syndicalism, religion, atheism, etc.). Therefore some degree of tolerance would seem necessary for such a society to function smoothly. Noone has the legitimate authority to impose their prefered form of organization onto anyone else. Everyone has the right to effectively secede as an individual from any form of organization. If you do not recognize the right of the individual to secede from your commune, secede from your union, secede from your buisiness, then you are not an anarchist. Someone who coerces or forces others into a given organization is a ruler by definition. Different preferances must compete on their own merits in a free society, not be imposed. If your particular preferance is truly superior, then it will tend to win out in free competition. If it is not, over time it will be outcompeted and you will have to deal with that. In effect, an anarchist society is a free market between forms of organization in and of itself. There is no singular model for a free society. A free society is whatever the result is of people voluntarily associating and disassociating, which inevitably is going to be a mixed bag. This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle. Your personal preferances do not have a monopoly on freedom. Your personal preferances do not define anarchism. Whatever personal or cultural preferances you have are only an afterthought in relation to the general principle.
As I see it, the bulk of social anarchists are irrationally intolerant of market anarchists, and vice versa. Many social anarchists deny that market anarchism really is anarchism and act as if advocation of socialistic forms of organization is an inherent requirement for one to be an anarchist. They seem to think that an anarchist society would uniformly reflect their preferances. Many anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, seem to think that all forms of socialism are inherently statist, which in a sense does detach them from anarchist tradition (which is predominately socialistic).
I think both sides are wrong in this respect. If one thinks in terms of a single model for an entire society, then one is still holding on to a statist mindset. Politics is essentially the art of imposing preferential models onto an entire society. A fact that many social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists alike, for different reasons and from different perspectives, seem to have trouble accepting is that "libertarian socialism" is a possible option within a free market - and that a significant portion of the debate between the two consists of nothing but semantics and a language game or barrier.
It might just be semantics, but my impression is that many of the "social" anarchists (not sure why they're dubbed such; perhaps because they're not economic anarchists?) see market exchange as inherently demeaning and exploitative, and see private property as the root of all hierarchy. I am able to deflect these silly criticisms, but they seem so deeply entrenched in these views that they rule out market anarchism automatically. My guess is that this is partially due to ignorance of basic economics and what market anarchism in fact consists in. It seems as soon as they hear the word "market" or "capitalism", rational thinking ceases. I have no problem with them attempting their communes or whatever they wish, provided they do not interfere with market orders. However, I also find their rejection of private property atavistic and reactionary. The problem is, on the one hand, "anarcho"-capitalists who are little else but vulgar libertarians who want the current model minus the state, and "anarcho"-communists/-socialists/-syndicalists who think they ought to have the right to violate market transactions, and justify the State whenever the opportunity comes up, in order to "tame" capitalism.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
That's a nice take. Things and folks are different everywhere. What works for me might suck for you.
I shouldn't say bad things about pinko's, but they all think they can run the world when most of them can barely run themeselves. They just become shivering crack addicts when folks get circled about personal responsibility and the sort.
Well, semantics are good to rap into agreement, sometimes. Like agreement of terms. Many terms have different meanings, but when we define those meanings we can solidify our perspectives?
If life was dog eat dog, there just wouldn't be too many dogs.
Individualism Rocks
Brainpolice: If one thinks in terms of a single model for an entire society, then one is still holding on to a statist mindset.
If one thinks in terms of a single model for an entire society, then one is still holding on to a statist mindset.
Exactly right.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I'd agree. You can have all of these different ideologies so long as you aren't forcing someone to participate in them. I've got no problem with socialist in general, just their insistance that I must give my money to the state so they can put a little in their pockets and whatever is left over give it to someone else who is too lazy to get a job and support themselves.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Brainpolice:As I see it, the bulk of social anarchists are irrationally intolerant of market anarchists, and vice versa.
When I lived in Chicago the vast majority of my friends were socialists, syndicalists, and collectivist anarchists. What they seem to focus on is hierarchy over force. I think this is a major divisive issue with them since they feel capitalism creates hierarchy and hierarchy leads to a state. Most of them think rules need to be created in order to prevent a state forming. They don’t seem that concerned with force at all. Personally I think they’re denying human nature, which includes hierarchy.Out of curiosity did you post that at RevLeft?
I'm open to anyone who is in favor of reducing the state, regardless of whether or not they believe we should have one.
This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle.
If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how people want to personally spend their money and time! Do we call a free-market capitalist who personally wants to collect movies a "movie-capitalist" as opposed to a pottery-capitalist, clothing-capitalist, etc.? Of course not, and it's no different with anarchy. The reason the different types of anarchism have different names is because they describe radically opposing systems.
If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist. It doesn't matter where or how you spend your money and your time. If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists! Of course, they might be a few confused individuals in other "schools of anarchy" who really do believe in individual liberty; I'm confident they'll convert once they find out about anarcho-capitalism.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature. Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Ego: I'm open to anyone who is in favor of reducing the state, regardless of whether or not they believe we should have one. This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle. If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how an people personally want to spend their money and time! Do we call a free-market capitalist who personally wants to collect movies a "movie-capitalist" as opposed to a pottery-capitalist, clothing-capitalist, etc.? Of course not, and it's no different with anarchy. The reason the different types of anarchism have different names is because they describe radically opposing systems. If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist. It doesn't matter where or how you spend your money and your time. If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists! Of course, they might be a few confused individuals in other "schools of anarchy" who really do believe in individual liberty; I'm confident they'll convert once they find out about anarcho-capitalism.
If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how an people personally want to spend their money and time! Do we call a free-market capitalist who personally wants to collect movies a "movie-capitalist" as opposed to a pottery-capitalist, clothing-capitalist, etc.? Of course not, and it's no different with anarchy. The reason the different types of anarchism have different names is because they describe radically opposing systems.
Imo, the reason different types of anarchism have different names is not only because they describe radically opposing systems, but because any of the following: 1.) They describe different means of achieving supposedly similar goals. 2.) Some individuals realized certain definitions are no longer valid after they've been hijacked via mis-used by others, or 3.) Some individuals arrived at similar conclusions in developing thoughts, but placed different labels upon them, or possibly didn't label them at all. I think it makes more than enough sense to designate certain means from others in an effort to not make any other given umbrella term (in this case, anarcho-capitalism) a package deal in describing different schools of thoughts within anarchism. This is partially why different labels with "-libertarian" developed, methinks.
I have a question that I hope will be considered to be related to this post. Basically I am wondering how geographic boundaries might affect the possibilities of the varied anarchist societies. You say that an important part is simply that an individual can secede from an organization.
So how does that come into play when the organization is based on geography, or where you live? Seems to me that if you move into any area that is covered by certain organizations and certain laws and such, then when you sign a contract to purchase the property, you are also agreeing to all the laws that exist at that particular time. Can anyone argue against that thought?
And then what about when the laws change from that point? At first I thought the individual should be free to not abide by any new laws that they did not specifically sign on as agreeing with, but then I wondered, if, by signing at the original purchase, you might also be consenting to the methods new laws would come about and so if they do, then you are bound by those too?
Thoughts?
Nitroadict: I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature. Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.
I think you are defining "hierarchy" too narrowly. At least more narrowly than in the sense that Ego is using it.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy:
4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also : the group so classified
This is part of human nature - no two individuals are exactly alike. There will naturally be people who are better at some things than others, Hoppe would use the term natural elites.
There is nothing statist about the concept of hierarchy, in the sense the I believe Ego is using it.
... and many of the *-libertarian schools are radically opposed to each other.
1.) They describe different means of achieving supposedly similar goals.
2.) Some individuals realized certain definitions are no longer valid after they've been hijacked via mis-used by others
or 3.) Some individuals arrived at similar conclusions in developing thoughts, but placed different labels upon them, or possibly didn't label them at all.
I agree with Brainpolice when he says that anyone who believes in voluntaryism is working towards the same goal. In fact, I don't care what label we use (I'd prefer if it didn't involve the words "anarchy" or "capitalism"...).
I'm more than willing to work with anyone who wants to shrink the government, regardless of whether they are anarchist.
Debbie: I have a question that I hope will be considered to be related to this post. Basically I am wondering how geographic boundaries might affect the possibilities of the varied anarchist societies. You say that an important part is simply that an individual can secede from an organization. So how does that come into play when the organization is based on geography, or where you live? Seems to me that if you move into any area that is covered by certain organizations and certain laws and such, then when you sign a contract to purchase the property, you are also agreeing to all the laws that exist at that particular time. Can anyone argue against that thought? And then what about when the laws change from that point? At first I thought the individual should be free to not abide by any new laws that they did not specifically sign on as agreeing with, but then I wondered, if, by signing at the original purchase, you might also be consenting to the methods new laws would come about and so if they do, then you are bound by those too? Thoughts?
Any set of laws or rules (I think "rules" is more precise) would only necessarily be applicable within the geographic area of an individual's property. It is possible (likely, in fact) that all the property owners in an area will agree on the same basic rules, but this need not be the case.
The idea that rules are necessarily applicable across property boundaries implies the existence of a state to enforce those laws - which is pretty much the antithesis of anarchy.
The only universal law in an anarchist society would be that it is never legitimate to initiate the use of force.
I fudged my argument completely; I was originally going to say there is a difference between social hierarchy & political hierarchy, whereas I would define political hierarchy as that which requires the state in order to exist, fosters the state's growth, as is used as a means of coercion, but I felt like I was over-reaching. I would've then gone on to say that social hierarchy is what we encounter in our everyday lives, families, friends, relationships, etc., but even still, I probably would've been defining hierarchy a bit narrowly lol.Ego: I more or less agree, (specifically with the hijacking); I don't remember exactly what I was trying to argue other than I disagreed with the statement that different names are made only for radically opposing systems, when different names are created for similar systems that aren't radically different from one another (socialism & communism come to mind, although there is probably a better example out there...). I also disagree with: "...if those individuals find out about anarcho-capitalism and decide they don't agree with us, they aren't anarcho-capitalists!", as, most likely, not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :|
Nitroadict:I completely disagree with regards that denying hierarchy is denying human nature. Individuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.
Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature.
Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.
not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :|
Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
minorgrey:The people I have talked to don't just disagree with political hierarchy, they disagree with all hierarchy. From bosses, to religion, to even arrangements in a family they oppose all of it. That is their main focus.
Those right-libertarians whom I see talking a lot about hierarchy tend not to make such distinctions that well either. They slide quickly from hierarchy that arises because of property (i.e. business owner -> manager -> employee) to non-property based hierarchy (elders -> townspeople (who are individual property owners)). I think it's most reasonable to set aside the hierarchy question entirely, and focus on force, not to insist that there should/should not/will/will not be hierarchy.
Ego: not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :| Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
Again, I fudge; I thought you were talking about the forums (and individuals) as a whole, not the an-caps here only.
minorgrey: Nitroadict:I completely disagree with regards that denying hierarchy is denying human nature. Individuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.Some people are aggressive, some people are passive, some people are dominant, and some are submissive. This is just variations of different personality types. To suggest that the majority of humans are just going to stop a hierarchical structure anytime soon is kind of like saying the majority of people are going to give up their natural tendency to own property (i.e. territory). Can some "rise above" hierarchy? Sure. Will the majority of people move above it anytime soon? No way.Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature.You should really think about how much hierarchy is involved in your day-to-day activities. Leadership is hierarchy. A boss is hierarchy. Religious intuitions involve hierarchy. I don't see the point of focusing on hierarchy over force.Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.The people I have talked to don't just disagree with political hierarchy, they disagree with all hierarchy. From bosses, to religion, to even arrangements in a family they oppose all of it. That is their main focus.
I meant to originally say that I object to hirearchy as being necessary for human nature, and is not required for individuals to exist, despite my sloppy argument. I agree with the OP, if that helps clarify my position :\ .
Jon Irenicus:The problem is, on the one hand, "anarcho"-capitalists who are little else but vulgar libertarians who want the current model minus the state,
I don't have a problem with Brain Police's concept of anarchy, not at all. But just as human nature won't fundamentally change in anarchy, neither will the history that we've already been through. That's why I think an anarchist society would not be radically different from our current society, at least not initially. Over time, changes will accumulate and an anarchist society will eventually start looking very radical, but not at first. My main point is merely that already existing models would be utilized at first, and only then will they start to morph into newer models and innovative structures and communities.
An obvious example would be the roads. The existing roads would obviously be used at first, and only over time would new, alternate road systems develop to meet market needs. Most likely some existing roads would continue to be maintained and used while others would be abandoned and converted to other land uses.
Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified.
BrainPolice: An anarchist society is a highly complex and pluralist (polycentric) society, not a singular or monocentric model. Not a uniform society.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Jon Irenicus: Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified. -Jon
The current market is producing what consumers want in the best possible way given the constraints imposed by government. It is as justified as any other market.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Would you then consider, for instance, Apple's substantial wealth due to IP law (a state-granted monopoly) to be fully justified and a feature of a free market?
Culture in a free state of liberty would be very homogenous. Any change in anything would make people worry about how it will effect their liberty. U.S. is the most prime example of conservative culture and its relation to liberty. The Puritan ideal still haunts America because that was when people felt "free". I agree with Thomas Jefferson on his "blood of tyrants and patriots are liberty's manure" quote, because people who are free do not think about liberty as much as people who are not free ( US on this forum). You would never see something like this in an anarchist society, people would not worry about liberty. And when people don't, that is when it is taken away.
So a change in the ideas of society would reflect fear of losing liberty, because people see the culture they have as a result of liberty, but do not consciously think that. I think that culture would become so static in a free society it would inhibit progress.
This is no defense of having a state, but the coo coo quote from the movie the " 3rd man" I see as having truth too it. Only Oppression leads to Liberty.
I believe that the idea of liberty would not exist if there was never a state. It is only when people are oppressed to they long to be "free" and think of liberty. Which raises the question if it would be better to have liberty and not know it?, or to have it and know that you have it.
If people know that they have it, pluralism would dominate, If people had it but didn't know the concept of liberty, I think culture would be static.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
I consider that Apple's wealth is justified by the fact that they make great products that people enjoy and pay them money for.
And you see no problem whatsoever in Apple possessing a monopolistic privilege in the form of IP laws, Stranger? What of Blackwater and its privileged position? Or Wal-Mart, and its clamouring for a higher minimum wage? When the State is actually out of the picture, and firms compete solely on their merit, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you; but I don't see why market anarchism should resemble the status quo except in those areas where it already approximates a free market; something many large corporations do not fall under.
You're following the same perfect market fallacy of academic economists, the idea that just because there isn't a pure free market (there can never be such a thing) that the actual market doesn't provide the goods that people want.
The problem of privileges is separate of the problem of earned wealth. Apple plays the same rules as everyone else. So long as those are the rules, they have to play. That makes them no better or no worse than you and I.
Juan:People who derive their earnings from government granted privileges are not legitimate market players - that much should be self-evident. Absent IP laws Apple would probably make less money than they do now.
As you reluctantly admit, you don't know that for sure. Apple could find many others ways of protecting its intellectual property.
A perfect market is a chimera. Even if the state is abolished, there will always be some individuals who are favored by circumstances more than others. That doesn't mean that the wealth they earn by selling goods is illegitimate.
Hold on a second here! Apple doesn't make money off of some special privledge the government provides. They make money off of a product that people like and are willing to pay for. They don't enjoy some protected privledge because they hold a patent. That isn't why they they control 85-90% of the market. They control the market because they have a better product than anyone else. But they aren't the only ones with MP3 players. Microsoft has the Zune (which I think is better anyway). Then you have a dozen others from Creative Labs, Archos, Sony, Samsung, iScan, ScanDisk, Coby, ZEN, Panasonic, Toshiba, iRiver, etc., etc. The money Apple earns off of their devices isn't because the state has granted them a special privledge. They earn money, legitimate money, because they have a product that people want and they view is the best value for their money.
Even if they didn't have a patent you still couldn't rip off their design and their technology.
Substitute any firm in bed with the state for Apple then.
Jon Irenicus: Substitute any firm in bed with the state for Apple then. -Jon
Everyone is in bed with the state, for the simple reason that the state has a monopoly on several essential goods. Unless someone is actively working to protect this monopoly, they are not illegimate members of the market. They are just looking out for their self-interests, just like you are.
Juan: Besides you are also confused as to what a 'perfect market' is. When academics talk about a 'perfect market' what they are advocating is a so called level playing field - a form of socialism. On the other hand, the strict enforcement of property rights that libertarians advocate can't be regarded as a 'perfect market' - property rights are the precondition for a market.
Even without a state, there would never be perfect enforcement of property rights. Some people would have better protection than others. That is what is implied by the fact that some property protectors are more efficient than others.
Sure, but then why defend the current arrangement as the model of market anarchism? How market anarchism plays out in practice may be very similar, and it may be radically different. I can see the virtue in defending firms whose profits are beyond question, but what is the gain of defending Blackwater as the model PDA, for instance? Vulgar libertarians tend to defend the current situation using free market theory, when a free market scarcely even exists.
I don't defend an "arrangement". I defend earned wealth and property.
Blackwater is not a model PDA. It is a mercenary outfit whose income comes from tax money.
Just who the hell are vulgar libertarians?
The problem with leftist-anarchists is that they see expropriation and destruction of property as legitimate actions. See, for example, this little gemstone from a Marxist website: sabotage. Notice that the lady is wearing an A on her cap. We, on the other hand, regard such actions as criminal, and entirely inconsistent with liberty.
As for me, I prefer "libertarian" over "anarchist", so as to distinguish us from the eco-terrorists and cop-killers.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."