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."
Xerox's failure to protect their intellectual property is Xerox's problem. And last I checked Microsoft wasn't part of the government so they can bail out Apple all they want. And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
"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.
kingmonkey:And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
FYI - those who oppose IP (myself included) aren't just opposing IP laws, or the words "patent" and "copyright". We really do oppose the very idea of intellectual property, i.e., property in ideas.
I don't want to turn this into an IP debate. I just wanted to point out that your intended reductio ad absurdum is precisely the position that many on this site advocate. If you are going to reject this position as "immoral and coercive" and put it on a level with statism, you had better back it up with some logic (but not in this thread, please).
Kingmonkey: Xerox's failure to protect their intellectual property is Xerox's problem. And last I checked Microsoft wasn't part of the government
Topic on intellectual property rights.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/2331.aspx
Juan:Ah, so cops defend life liberty and property ? That's news isn't it ? Last time I checked the state and its cops are by far the biggest destructors of property righs. Consider for instance how many people are jailed because of smoking pot. Then tell me who does the jailing ? My limited understanding tells me it's cops who gladly shoot their fellows when their fellows disobey the tyrannical dictates of the state - but maybe I got something wrong....
I didn't say that cops "defend life liberty and property"; I only meant to suggest that stabbing a police officer who writes you up might not be the best way to advance the cause of liberty.
But that is just my opinion.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Jon Irenicus: 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
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
I agree entirely.
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!
It makes no sense to add the word "capitalism", to have an anarcho + an adjective, if we are talking consistant voluntaryism. "Capitalism" would only be one optional add-on, not what defines it. Anarcho-capitalism does not equal voluntaryism in any absolute sense. It is only one form of it.
If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist.
No. If you respect others rights as individuals, you're an anarchist, plain and simple. Whether or not you're a "capitalist" is entirely irrelevant to that.
If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists!
I prefer to call myself a market anarchist - which is a broader movement than anarcho-capitalism. I despise the term anarcho-capitalism because (1) it confuses the hell out of people (2) it's a red flag to a bull and a self-contradictary term with respect to most anarchists and (3) the word capitalism itself has been rendered into an anti-concept or package deal term.
The problem with your view here is that you're acting as if anarcho-capitalism has a rightful monopoly on anarchism. In effect, you're proclaiming that only anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, that all consistant voluntaryists are anarcho-capitalists.
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 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.
It really depends on what one means by the term heirarchy. In a certain sense, I do think that heirarchy is natural, and in another sense I think it is a bad thing. I do think that absolute egalitarianism does contradict human nature because quite obviously diversity and equality contradict eachother and human beings are rather diverse. But that doesn't stop me from mutually respecting some egalitarians who are voluntaryists and it doesn't stop me from desiring to see egalitarian tendencies increased.
Stranger: 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.
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
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.
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 problem is that we don't current have a free market. Non-free markets are not equally justified as free markets. They are distorted.
Out of curiosity did you post that at RevLeft?
No, it was in the main anarchist message board on myspace actually.
Ego: not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :| Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :|
Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
The question is circular.
This issue bugs the hell out of me. It seems so simple, any political movements which follow the NAP, ZAP, are voluntarist, truly anarchist etc should be able to get along. But somehow they don't. For example, one of my good friends from the far left calls himself a market socialist and is basically the same as an ancap. I showed him some Rothbard and he digs it and thinks we can be allies. On the other hand some of his anarcho communist pals from the far left went to see a lecture by David D. Friedman and brought a pie and... threw the pie in his face when he was speaking. No joke! Someone who theoretically should be allies with any anarchist gets a pie thrown in his face by people who should be his fellow anarchists in revolution. Its things like that that can make you suspect humanity in general are just too stupid, unprincipled and cowardly to ever be truly free. I still have some hope left though. Maybe the vulgar libertarians and the reverse (vulgar far left anarchists? I dont know what we should call them) can be convinced of their errors. Imagine how powerful a true anarchy without adjectives movement could be!
majevska: This issue bugs the hell out of me. It seems so simple, any political movements which follow the NAP, ZAP, are voluntarist, truly anarchist etc should be able to get along. But somehow they don't. For example, one of my good friends from the far left calls himself a market socialist and is basically the same as an ancap. I showed him some Rothbard and he digs it and thinks we can be allies. On the other hand some of his anarcho communist pals from the far left went to see a lecture by David D. Friedman and brought a pie and... threw the pie in his face when he was speaking. No joke! Someone who theoretically should be allies with any anarchist gets a pie thrown in his face by people who should be his fellow anarchists in revolution. Its things like that that can make you suspect humanity in general are just too stupid, unprincipled and cowardly to ever be truly free. I still have some hope left though. Maybe the vulgar libertarians and the reverse (vulgar far left anarchists? I dont know what we should call them) can be convinced of their errors. Imagine how powerful a true anarchy without adjectives movement could be!
In my experience, market anarchists tend to be far more tolerant of other schools of anarchism than most anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists are. Some of the socialist types claim to be all about anarchism without adjectives, yet they essentially exclude market anarchism. Although it seems to me that the consensus at this board is also a bit too intolerant of more socialistic anarchist traditions. And I have a similar friend who is a mutualist who is also a fan of Rothbard and doesn't quarrel with market anarchists.
Brainpolice, 99.99% of anarchists aren't in favor of non-aggression. You can play word games all you want, but the correct, modern term for individuals in favor of non-aggression is "anarcho-capitalist".
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.
Ego: Brainpolice, 99.99% of anarchists aren't in favor of non-aggression. You can play word games all you want, but the correct, modern term for individuals in favor of non-aggression is "anarcho-capitalist".
Are you certain that anarchists don't favor non-aggression? 99.99%?
No, "anarcho-capitalist" is not a term that describes voluntaryism as a whole. I'm not playing word games - you are the one making this semantic by insisting that "anarcho-capitalism" is the only term that can possibly describe a pro-liberty philosophy. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new term and the ideas of voluntaryism precede it by well over a century. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not the only faction that supports voluntaryism.
To proclaim that only "anarcho-capitalists" support voluntary interpersonal relations is to take a snobby and irrationally elitist attitude and be ignorant of the history of anarchism. It is downright ridiculous to ignore the bulk of the history of anarchism, dub oneself an "anarcho-capitalist" and then go on to proclaim that only "anarcho-capitalism" is truly anarchism. That's simply silly and makes you no better than the anarcho-communists who try to claim a monopoly on anarchism.
Furthermore, I'm not convinced that all self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists" are truly consistant with the NAP when it boils down to their actual policy positions and outlook towards politics. Some make glaring acceptions that makes them function as minarchists or even conservatives. Some are even closet monarchists. I won't name any names.
Anarcho-anything can be consistant with the non-aggression principle so long as the adjective attached to the anarcho is truly persued in a voluntary content. The labels and preferances are entirely irrelevant. What matters is that people persue such matters through free association, and the concept of free association was not invented a mere few decades ago by Murray Rothbard. That's the entire point of this thread, and apparently it doesn't register with you.
99.99% of statistics are not nessesarily true; the statement that "...the correct "modern" terms for individuals in favor of non-aggression is "anarcho-capitalist" " is also not nessarily true. Those who do not consider themselves anarcho-capitalist can indeed be in favor of non-aggression. "...The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including natural law, utilitarianism, contractarianism, egoism, and Objectivism. Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. However, some espouse the principle as a simple matter of personal preference."Albiet, that is an excerpt from wikipedia, but it does not make it hard for one to imagine that just maybe, those who do not label themselves anarcho-capitalist, or even do not call themselves such, can believe in the NAP. I'd be willing to bet there is a bunch of individuals who fall under the following list, who believe in the NAP:Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Left-libertarianism Libertarian feminism Free-market anarchism Minarchism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Progressive libertarianism Propertarianism Right-libertarianism Rights libertarianism VoluntaryismObviously, some of these can be objected to, but that won't prevent someone who, depending on their knowledge, may consider themselves socialists to some extent, yet believe in the NAP, or at least respect it. Simply claiming "99.9%" of anarchists aren't in favor of this, or aren't in favor of that, and then going on to say that a certain term is correct & modern, when the one who is claiming so themselve said previously that meanings of labels & terms change in a post a while ago, in a different thread, I think, doesn't make sense to me : \
"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
Anarcho-capitalism =/= anarchism without adjectives. Anarchism without adjectives is the plural result of adhering to voluntary principles. It is a broader spectrum. Anarcho-capitalism is contained within it.
What's your point?
Did I ever challenge the non-aggression of past anarchists? Nope. That's because I'm talking about the present! Your constant use of past, historic definitions to try to defend supporters of modern, current definitions is misleading at best, evil at worst.
As I posted in another thread:
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! The leftist-libertarians on this board 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 words they want to describe any thing they want. Here is where the "game" comes in. They have the audacity to insult our intelligence and use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern left-wingers are more libertarian than modern right-wingers! 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. Leftists-libertarians clearly prefer modern left-wingers to modern right-wingers; they know that won't fly with libertarians, and that's why they play with definitions.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! The leftist-libertarians on this board 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 words they want to describe any thing they want.
Here is where the "game" comes in. They have the audacity to insult our intelligence and use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern left-wingers are more libertarian than modern right-wingers! 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.
Leftists-libertarians clearly prefer modern left-wingers to modern right-wingers; they know that won't fly with libertarians, and that's why they play with definitions.
I'll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I'm trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards "the right".
You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time. If the "leftists" mischaracterize you as a "rightist" and the "rightists" mischaracterize you as a "leftist", you're probably a libertarian! I would think actual libertarians wouldn't participate in the exact same false characterization that they are often prone to themselves.
Ego: What's your point? Did I ever challenge the non-aggression of past anarchists? Nope. That's because I'm talking about the present! Your constant use of past, historic definitions to try to defend supporters of modern, current definitions is misleading at best, evil at worst. As I posted in another thread: Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! The leftist-libertarians on this board 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 words they want to describe any thing they want. Here is where the "game" comes in. They have the audacity to insult our intelligence and use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern left-wingers are more libertarian than modern right-wingers! 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. Leftists-libertarians clearly prefer modern left-wingers to modern right-wingers; they know that won't fly with libertarians, and that's why they play with definitions.
Brainpolice: I'll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I'm trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards "the right". You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time.
I'll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I'm trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards "the right". You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time.
I'll try it this way:
Brainpolice, why does the historical definition of a word matter?
No one is reducing things to left and right. Like I've said in another thread, however:
I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.
I have no idea why you brought it up, though.
This post is fantastic. I get the "leftist" thing now. Well explained.
As far as I remember, didn't BP say he did not advocate allying with modern left-wingers at all? How is it even an issue?
Nitroadict: As far as I remember, didn't BP say he did not advocate allying with modern left-wingers at all? How is it even an issue?
I already responded to Ego's quote from its original thread and clarified that he's making a mischaracterization by accusing me of trying to defend contemporary "leftist" statists. I advocate allying with anyone who supports voluntary interpersonal relations, wether they call themselves "leftists", "socialists", "capitalists" or purple people eaters.
Brainpolice: I'll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I'm trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards "the right". You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time. If the "leftists" mischaracterize you as a "rightist" and the "rightists" mischaracterize you as a "leftist", you're probably a libertarian! I would think actual libertarians wouldn't participate in the exact same false characterization that they are often prone to themselves.
Brainpolice is putting it nicely. I just think Ego is the classic definition of a vulgar libertarian.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: Brainpolice: I'll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I'm trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards "the right". You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time. If the "leftists" mischaracterize you as a "rightist" and the "rightists" mischaracterize you as a "leftist", you're probably a libertarian! I would think actual libertarians wouldn't participate in the exact same false characterization that they are often prone to themselves. Brainpolice is putting it nicely. I just think Ego is the classic definition of a vulgar libertarian.
You two are excellent at arguing against points with which I disagree. I've always said that we should side with anyone who is in favor of shrinking the state! Look at my first reply in this thread!
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 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.
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.
And then this:
Ego: ... and many of the *-libertarian schools are radically opposed to each other. 1.) They describe different means of achieving supposedly similar goals.Individuals in a given school have different means of achieving the same goals; at the same time, an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-communist might agree on to how to achieve different goals. I can't agree that your point is valid. 2.) Some individuals realized certain definitions are no longer valid after they've been hijacked via mis-used by othersWhenever this happens, the individuals who feel a certain label has been hijacked will usually abstain from denouncing the label, and will instead denounce the hijackers. Many libertarians abstain from calling themselves "libertarian". If asked why, they'll almost always say, "Well, I was a libertarian, but non-libertarians have hijacked the meaning of the word, so I prefer x". They will never say, "I disagree with what libertarianism stands for". 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. Like I said, if those individuals find out about anarcho-capitalism and decide they don't agree with us, they aren't anarcho-capitalists! 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.
... 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.
However, Nicky and Brainpolice take a sinister position.
...it seems to me that the consensus at this board is also a bit too intolerant of more socialistic anarchist traditions.
There are several more quotes like this in this thread alone.
Nicky and Brainpolice are either
While I'd normally be inclined to believe you're just trying to create a strawman, Nicky's constant glorification of the left (in fact, he's admitted that he thinks state oppressors should not stop; it's the responsibility of the oppressed to escape) and Brainpolice's constant support of Nicky leads me to believe that you both really do support the left.
I'm not going to go through the headache of reading what you think qualifies as intelligent writing, so I'll keep it short and sweet.
Libertarian socialists oppose property in the sense that they see it as exploitative. Currently, the way governments use property is exploitative. I cannot deny that the LS are correct if that is what they mean, however, if that is not what they mean I believe that they can be converted to Mutualism rather quickly or at least Anarcho-Syndicalism.
It isn't about responsibility to escape, it's about the fact that the only way it will stop is if the state is taken head on. It's about rejecting the premise of the state as an illusory one - one that no libertarian will follow.
As far as "left" goes. You're still making the mistake of defining it outside of libertarianism. Libertarianism is left. Get over it.
Niccolò:It isn't about responsibility to escape, it's about the fact that the only way it will stop is if the state is taken head on. It's about rejecting the premise of the state as an illusory one - one that no libertarian will follow.
As determined how? By negative proof?
Neither mutualism or anarcho-syndicalism are libertarian in my opinion. But they are leftist.
Ego:While I'd normally be inclined to believe you're just trying to create a strawman, Nicky's constant glorification of the left (in fact, he's admitted that he thinks state oppressors should not stop; it's the responsibility of the oppressed to escape) and Brainpolice's constant support of Nicky leads me to believe that you both really do support the left.
You know, I don't generally agree with Niccolo, but this is simply a mischaracterization of his position, and is so far afield that I have trouble seeing it as a legitimate mistake.
But your post does serve the purpose of inspiring me to lay my cards on the table. I don't know about Brainpolice and Niccolo, but I do support the left in the short term. In the long run, I see libertarianism prevailing, but I simply see no prospect of that happening in the day-to-day political struggles. What I think will best promote long-term freedom is for the left to prevail in the short run.
Part of this is a subjective choice - I prefer the prospect of a ruined economy to that of Bush's police state. Yes, I understand your objection that Kucinich, too, will jail those who don't pay taxes. At least, though, Kucinich will insist that people be charged with tax evasion, that they be found guilty in a real trial, that the prosecutors not abuse their power, and that the people not be tortured into confessing. Maybe these differences don't matter to you, but they do to me. So long as there is a state, and in the short-run that seems unavoidable, I sure as heck want a state that abides by the rule of law.
Part of it, though, is a prioritization of threats. I judge the priority of threats on two grounds - first, what is presently happening, and next, the mood of the people. The mood of the people is intense fear, and the people are not likely to object to the warfare state or the security state, at least not very loudly. This means that the right, if put in power, can accomplish more than the left can. On the basis of what is happening, well, medicare prescription drugs is far from the most serious threat to liberty put in place during the Bush years.
You always tell us that rightist actions can be more easily reversed. I have already responded that, in fact, right wing actions develop their own inertia too, and even if the left opposes them at first, the left will generally oppose roling them back later. Take the TSA, for instance. To roll it back now would be to return a function to the market - even the left will object to that.
I simply don't consider it true that it's easier to, for instance, restore habeas corpus, or reverse a cultural change that leads to acceptance of torture, than to stop paying for prescription drugs. If anything, I hold that the reverse is true. Besides, again, there is more to consider than the ease of rolling something back. There is also the question of how bad the policy is in the first place, and how fundamental a social change it is. Right-wing actions in the last few years have broken hundreds of years of tradition - fragile traditions that are hard to repair.
Now, on your claim that Niccolo should be purged or something because he said that libertarianism is leftist - will you also purge Murray Rothbard for having written Left and Right? How about Roderick Long for his speech 50 Years Later? Kevin Carson? Brad Spangler? Me? Are none of us libertarian? If I had to pick a side of this dilemma, I'd take these folks over someone who strikes me as pretty much a conservative with many libertarian leanings.
JAlanKatz:Now, on your claim that Niccolo should be purged or something because he said that libertarianism is leftist - will you also purge Murray Rothbard for having written Left and Right? How about Roderick Long for his speech 50 Years Later? Kevin Carson? Brad Spangler? Me? Are none of us libertarian? If I had to pick a side of this dilemma, I'd take these folks over someone who strikes me as pretty much a conservative with many libertarian leanings.
I think he was sarcastically adopting Nicky's own rhetoric, of "Agorism running wild on you!" (the reformists). In fact, he wants to purge you too. Darn Kucinich supporters...
Nic: As far as "left" goes. You're still making the mistake of defining it outside of libertarianism. Libertarianism is left. Get over it.
Ego: Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! The leftist-libertarians on this board 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 words they want to describe any thing they want. Here is where the "game" comes in. They have the audacity to insult our intelligence and use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern left-wingers are more libertarian than modern right-wingers! 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. Leftists-libertarians clearly prefer modern left-wingers to modern right-wingers; they know that won't fly with libertarians, and that's why they play with definitions.
JAlanKatz: You know, I don't generally agree with Niccolo, but this is simply a mischaracterization of his position, and is so far afield that I have trouble seeing it as a legitimate mistake. The mood of the people is intense fear, and the people are not likely to object to the warfare state or the security state, at least not very loudly. This means that the right, if put in power, can accomplish more than the left can. You always tell us that rightist actions can be more easily reversed. I have already responded that, in fact, right wing actions develop their own inertia too, and even if the left opposes them at first, the left will generally oppose roling them back later. Take the TSA, for instance. To roll it back now would be to return a function to the market - even the left will object to that. I simply don't consider it true that it's easier to, for instance, restore habeas corpus, or reverse a cultural change that leads to acceptance of torture, than to stop paying for prescription drugs. If anything, I hold that the reverse is true. Besides, again, there is more to consider than the ease of rolling something back. There is also the question of how bad the policy is in the first place, and how fundamental a social change it is. Right-wing actions in the last few years have broken hundreds of years of tradition - fragile traditions that are hard to repair. If I had to pick a side of this dilemma, I'd take these folks over someone who strikes me as pretty much a conservative with many libertarian leanings.
The mood of the people is intense fear, and the people are not likely to object to the warfare state or the security state, at least not very loudly. This means that the right, if put in power, can accomplish more than the left can.
If I had to pick a side of this dilemma, I'd take these folks over someone who strikes me as pretty much a conservative with many libertarian leanings.
More or less ditto, specifically the last line. Interesting post, katz.
I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good.
"Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means."
"We are now in a position to apply our analysis to the American scene. Here we encounter a contrasting myth about recent American history which has been propagated by current conservatives and adopted by most American libertarians. The myth goes approximately as follows: America was, more or less, a haven of laissez-faire until the New Deal; then Roosevelt, influenced by Felix Frankfurter, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, and other "Fabian" and Communist "conspirators," engineered a revolution which set America on the path to Socialism, and, further on, beyond the horizon, to Communism. The present-day libertarian who adopts this or a similar view of the American experience, tends to think of himself as an "extreme right-winger"; slightly to the left of him, then, lies the Conservative, to the left of that the middle-of-the road, and then leftward to Socialism and Communism. Hence, the enormous temptation for some libertarians to red-bait; for, since they see America as drifting inexorably leftward to Socialism and therefore to Communism, the great temptation is for them to overlook the intermediary stages and tar all of their opposition with the hated Red brush."
One of my first posts here was over the same argument: [see my next post]
Brainpolice: I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good.
Hmm, I'll check that out. 25 years before he became a Paleocon.
Actually, this was my earlier post that I was looking for. Sorry for the awful writing...
The war on drugs could be ended in a week. Just stop enforcing the laws! There would be practically no fallout. Social Security, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to end (and FDR even gloated about this). How is it possible to end a system where current workers are funding current retirees? Note only is it logistically difficult, it's electorally impossible! It's a system that creates voters who are dependent upon the system. How can we wean people off of welfare(and all other social services) when they've become accustomed that money? Ignoring the logistical mess of cutting off millions of people's main source of income (an income to which they've become accustom), it is nearly electorally possible. Not only will those using welfare be opposed to ending it, so will people who feel they might need to use it soon. A welfare system create more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, which in turn leads to an expansion of the welfare system, which leads to more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, etc. Leftist policies create perpetual votes, and that's why they are biggest enemy. That, and the left's ingrained arrogance and desire to control others, as I noted in the OP.
The war on drugs could be ended in a week. Just stop enforcing the laws! There would be practically no fallout.
Social Security, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to end (and FDR even gloated about this).
How is it possible to end a system where current workers are funding current retirees? Note only is it logistically difficult, it's electorally impossible! It's a system that creates voters who are dependent upon the system.
How can we wean people off of welfare(and all other social services) when they've become accustomed that money? Ignoring the logistical mess of cutting off millions of people's main source of income (an income to which they've become accustom), it is nearly electorally possible. Not only will those using welfare be opposed to ending it, so will people who feel they might need to use it soon.
A welfare system create more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, which in turn leads to an expansion of the welfare system, which leads to more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, etc.
Leftist policies create perpetual votes, and that's why they are biggest enemy. That, and the left's ingrained arrogance and desire to control others, as I noted in the OP.