maxpot46: Stranger:What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism Wow, that rolls right off the tongue... only 9 syllables!
Stranger:What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism
Wow, that rolls right off the tongue... only 9 syllables!
I still believe we should seriously consider "Voluntaryist".
Nick. B: maxpot46: Stranger:What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism Wow, that rolls right off the tongue... only 9 syllables! I still believe we should seriously consider "Voluntaryist".
Any word will do. The point is the word itself isn't worth defending.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
MacFall: He's not criticizing the concept of inequality. He's criticizing racism. People are individuals. Race is a collectivist concept that should mean absolutely nothing to a libertarian.
He's not criticizing the concept of inequality. He's criticizing racism. People are individuals. Race is a collectivist concept that should mean absolutely nothing to a libertarian.
It is a sociological concept, and a fallacious one at that. There is only one human race. The physical differences between the so-called races are completely irrelevant to any rational discussion about the human mind, and it is with the mind that social sciences are concerned. Personally I reject the concept of "race" altogether, but if someone wants to talk about race they should limit themselves to the differences in pigmentation, bone structure, muscle density, and other such superficialities.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Wow. Didn't get too far off topic, did we?
I, personally, still prefer anarcho-capitalist, but probably the most important point is that no label is going to be a magic bullet to understanding and communication. Nitro and McFall seem to have the most sensible position: know your audience and how to approach them. Have multiple labels handy and try to pick the most appropriate one for your audience, so that you'll have a chance to actually talk about the concept and not get hung up on the label or semantics.
At this point, I see no reason to abandon any particular label--words always go through shifts in definitiions and meaning over time.
MacFall: Personally I reject the concept of "race" altogether,
Then you reject reality.
And genetics can account for differences in intelligence just as much as they can for differences in running ability.,
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: MacFall: Personally I reject the concept of "race" altogether, Then you reject reality.
No I do not. Race is a false concept. It has nothing to do with reality. It was a sociological theory, presented by racists, and has since been disproven.
Genetics != race. There is no inherent difference in intelligence between a "black man" and a "white man". Once again: PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS.
My God, I can't believe I'm arguing against polylogism with an Austrian.
MacFall:There is no inherent difference in intelligence between a "black man" and a "white man".
Of course there is. Just like there's differences in running ability. You might as well claim that there's no difference in intelligence between members of one family, and members of another. Only, this time it's a bigger family.
Um, polylogism and racism are two different things. Only if one claims that the logical structure of the mind differs by race (or class, or whatever), are they a polylogist. That entails a mind for which true inferences are not truth-preserving &c. "Thinking differently" is not sufficient for polylogism.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GilesStratton: MacFall:There is no inherent difference in intelligence between a "black man" and a "white man". Of course there is. Just like there's differences in running ability. You might as well claim that there's no difference in intelligence between members of one family, and members of another. Only, this time it's a bigger family.
No. Once again.
PEOPLE.
ARE.
INDIVIDUALS.
There are blacks who are far smarter than the average white, whites who are far faster than the average black. There are blacks and whites who are far slower or less intelligent than the average of either or both averaged together.
But intelligence follows a bell curve, and the bell curve for blacks happens to be smaller than that for whites because there are fewer of them. If you were to separate whites further into their countries of origin, then it would appear that blacks are more intellegent than any of those groups. If you were to seperate people into their immediate families, Catholics and Muslims would appear to be more intellegent than everyone else combined. It has to do with a simple difference in numbers, and nothing to do with the race of the person in question.
C.H. Hellstrom: Brainpolice:the state does not make us "equal" to eachother. In Sweden, and other welfare states, the redistribution of wealth is a primary task of government. One could say that the welfare state is a State with the specific purpose to redistribute wealth in society, with the purpose of making people more equal. With equal in this context I don’t mean the universality of rights, but rather material equality - that is forcefully created by the State
Brainpolice:the state does not make us "equal" to eachother.
In Sweden, and other welfare states, the redistribution of wealth is a primary task of government. One could say that the welfare state is a State with the specific purpose to redistribute wealth in society, with the purpose of making people more equal. With equal in this context I don’t mean the universality of rights, but rather material equality - that is forcefully created by the State
And again: the real-world outcome of welfare states is not equality. It's more poverty. The state does not and cannot create actual material equality.
Stranger, consider this post to be my signature on your petition to stop being called an anarchist. When people who call themselves anarchists damage private property (i.e. what is going on in Greece at the moment) it is time to call youself something else. I know they are not "real" anarchists - they are confused Marxists - but we cannot risk being associated with people who damage private property.
Signed,
ryanpatgray, Florida, North America
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Voluntaryist - I like that. Voluntaryist would be fine with me and it emphasizes the very thing that we are for - voluntary action. It emphasizes what we are for and not what we are against.
You're incorrect. In both senses. Christianity is inherently anti - state. As for egalitarianism, it is the result of the abolition of private property, which occurs and can only occur as a result of the state. In the context of the state, we become citizens as opposed to individuals.
You just totally side-stepped my point. Christianity is not inherently anti-statist. ANY ideology, including both religion and egalitarianism, can be anti-state or pro-state depending on how they are approached. And for the millionth time, the state never actually abolishes private property.
Yes, the monarchs claim is. So what? That's not the issue in question. The fact is the monarchs property still rests on some understanding of property rights. If they're not clearly defined or if they're altogether disregarded his own property is suffer. As opposed to a public government who doesn't own the government and has to pander to different sections of the population in order to gain a majority support. This includes disregarding the property rights of the minorty - the rich. And it does not in the least bit depend on the monarch being a libertarian. It has to do with self interest, the monarch can pass his property on and owns it himself, the corollary being that he can sell it on the market and that it has a price. The implications of this is that not only does he have an interest in keeping the property value high, but more importantly, he knows whether or not his actions has harmed his property value. As we all agree intervention in the economy reduces overall wealth, he will tend to refrain from this.
And it does not in the least bit depend on the monarch being a libertarian. It has to do with self interest, the monarch can pass his property on and owns it himself, the corollary being that he can sell it on the market and that it has a price. The implications of this is that not only does he have an interest in keeping the property value high, but more importantly, he knows whether or not his actions has harmed his property value. As we all agree intervention in the economy reduces overall wealth, he will tend to refrain from this.
This is insanity. 1. The property values of the state are irrelevant from the perspective of the subjects and it does NOT follow from one being a monarch that they will "respect private property". This is total nonsense.
Exactly why Hoppe condemns monarchs.
Actually he tows an ambiguous line between denying their legitimacy and painting a rosy picture of them.
Yes, all states abolish private property. What do you think property tax and income tax means?
No states abolish private property. Abolish woud mean that there literally is no private property anymore. Private property clearly is not outright abolished by any state, even communist ones. Property tax and income tax are violations of property rights, yes - this by no means means that they actually "abolish private property".
You're attacking a strawman. But anyway, they do.
You claim strawman and then CONFIRM the accusation. Amazing.
Some people do get every rich as a result of the state and in that regard, yes, they make wealth more unevenly distributed. And yet the general population all become more mediocre and more alike. As a result of the inability to exclude and the destruction of private property.
Again: the state does not actually increase and equally distribute material prosperity.
You're aware of the Austrian Theory of the Buisness Cycle, I take it? Well one of it's most satisfying aspects is this: it correctly explains why otherwise brilliant entreprenuers make huge errors and allocate resources wrongly. Same applies to these rich that get hand outs. They may, or may not, be very intelligent and yet their inability to allocate resources does not reflect this. The institutional arrangements are to blame, not the people that are trapped inside them.
When the state uses billions of tax dollars to bail out banks and industries, it is quite clear that the costs of the bad decsions of the people in those areas and their inability to compete is being externalized onto society. I don't know why you'd argue against this. That's how protectionism works.
The poor receive welfare, in many forms. If you're denying this you're just denying reality. Only more openly that you usually do.
Rich interests connected to the government recieve far more welfare.
The problem is that nobody whines at the plight of the rich. There was widespread opposition to the bailouts. Granted, it was ignored but the bailout was by no means popular.
And what's your point? That we should be cheering for the bail-outs out of a concern for the alleged "plight of the rich"? Please!
What's the problem with the conservative intepretation?
It completely overlooks the inherently involuntary nature of the state and the degree to which people have no choice but to comply or face jail or death.
How on earth is a situation in which one party is clearly in a position of authority or superiority egalitarian? You're twisting words. Double plus ungood.
We're not talking about the same things. You're talking about this big bad evil "egalitarianism" that you've blown up as a concept in your head.
Either they're universal, with certain conditions. Or they're not universal because they don't grant rights to animals. Unless you think dogs are capable of rational argumentation and can be brought within the division of labour? Wouldn't suprise me.
You just erected a strawman about animals. Me (and Rothbard) meant universal as in applied to all human beings.
They're not capable of it amongst themselves, there's no linguistic barriers there.
This claim is outright false. You're just being a bigot. There is no reality behind your proposition here. All human beings are generally capable of rational argumentation - they don't have to agree with your worldview or share your culture to be able to do so.
But I c ould just as easily say we don't know that dogs are not capable of it. After all, there is a language barrier.
You're very clearly dehumanizing people now, with analogy to dogs and all.
And yet if they have no idea of the concept of property they cannot possess it. Once again, like animals.
Once again, it is absurd to make analogies to animals.
It isn't necessarily true that "primitives" or less developed cultures have no concept of property. All humans have had SOME concept of property ever since our tribal past, or we would have not survived to begin with. Even tribal societies had some recognition of property, by the very least a concept of possession and occupancy. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what concepts are in people's heads - in actual fact, they DO posses property. Your position is highly untenable.
If it doesn't belong to anybody and nobody can prove their ownership, it's up for grabs.
It DOES belong to someone and they very easily CAN prove their ownership. It would be absurd for you to point me to a non-nomadic tribe with their own dwellings, tools and commonly used hunting grounds and say that they have ZERO property. You're just rationalizing theft.
The truth of the matter is this: there are people who cannot be brought within the division of labour and peaceful exchange.
Nonsense. Everyone can be and everyone is to one degree or another. You're just expressing extreme prejudice.
As such, they must be removed from society.
Nonsense, and how do you intend to do this without violating their liberty and their property rights? Suppose they clearly already have their own home. Are you going to force them off of their own home? You're just making a rationalization for conservative communitarianism.
If they continue to violate property rights, they must be dealt with.
It isn't necessary for them to be violating property rights to be in this position to begin with. You assume too much.
Stop defending people whose existance is not compatible with property rights, just because they have dark skin.
Noone's very existance is incompatible with property rights. That's ridiculous.
Stop making sweeping prejudici statements about people in the attempt to rationalize mistreating them.
Stop letting your white guilt get in the way of your reason.
I have no white guilt, and there is nothing remotely reasonable about your conservative communitarian claims.
ryanpatgray: Stranger, consider this post to be my signature on your petition to stop being called an anarchist. When people who call themselves anarchists damage private property (i.e. what is going on in Greece at the moment) it is time to call youself something else. I know they are not "real" anarchists - they are confused Marxists - but we cannot risk being associated with people who damage private property. Signed, ryanpatgray, Florida, North America
ryanpatgray: Nick. B: maxpot46: Stranger:What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism Wow, that rolls right off the tongue... only 9 syllables! I still believe we should seriously consider "Voluntaryist". Voluntaryist - I like that. Voluntaryist would be fine with me and it emphasizes the very thing that we are for - voluntary action. It emphasizes what we are for and not what we are against.
Second & Seconded. Voluntaryist cuts more to the point of the (increasingly more apparent & visible) conflict of "choice vs. coercion", "involuntary vs. voluntary", "liberty vs. authority". The recent riots in Greece & seeing my statist-leftists friends root for the violence, did little to see how allying myself with the label anarchist (despite it being technically correct, to those who know better) would continue to be a positive thing.
"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
Hmm, why not simply "voluntarist" in that case? it does, at least, have the virtue to refer to an existing philosophical concept... though it obviously doesn't only refer to a political but also to an epistemological stand; hence, it doesn't have the exact same scope as "anarchism" -;)
Stranger: GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So... In any case, it's not really a contradiction is it? When Stranger claims that wealth is a measure of their success doesn't that merely mean that a large number of people rank a particular end highly on their value scales? In this case, the end is a culturally conservative community. Hoppe's argument is even more specific than that: cultural conservatism directly promotes the production and accumulation of wealth through lower time preference, better education and better morality. It's not so much that the market demands culturally conservative communities, but that culturally conservative communities will come to take up a larger and larger part of the market. So even if only 10% of the population is conservative, that 10% will come to own most of the land.
GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So... In any case, it's not really a contradiction is it? When Stranger claims that wealth is a measure of their success doesn't that merely mean that a large number of people rank a particular end highly on their value scales? In this case, the end is a culturally conservative community.
Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So...
In any case, it's not really a contradiction is it? When Stranger claims that wealth is a measure of their success doesn't that merely mean that a large number of people rank a particular end highly on their value scales? In this case, the end is a culturally conservative community.
Hoppe's argument is even more specific than that: cultural conservatism directly promotes the production and accumulation of wealth through lower time preference, better education and better morality. It's not so much that the market demands culturally conservative communities, but that culturally conservative communities will come to take up a larger and larger part of the market.
So even if only 10% of the population is conservative, that 10% will come to own most of the land.
That claim is ridiculous. You're just assuming that people who agree with your worldview will inherently be vastly superior to everyone else. It by no means necessarily follows from the fact that one is a cultural conservative that they will actually be more productive or talented than anyone else.
M-la-maudite: Hmm, why not simply "voluntarist" in that case? it does, at least, have the virtue to refer to an existing philosophical concept... though it obviously doesn't only refer to a political but also to an epistemological stand; hence, it doesn't have the exact same scope as "anarchism" -;)
Once again the french socialists have coined this word already to mean a politician who willfully intervenes.
Brainpolice: That claim is ridiculous. You're just assuming that people who agree with your worldview will inherently be vastly superior to everyone else. It by no means necessarily follows from the fact that one is a cultural conservative that they will actually be more productive or talented than anyone else.
Talented no, productive yes. It is in the way talent is used that wealth is or isn't accumulated, and conservative behavior makes better use of talent.
Stranger: M-la-maudite: Hmm, why not simply "voluntarist" in that case? it does, at least, have the virtue to refer to an existing philosophical concept... though it obviously doesn't only refer to a political but also to an epistemological stand; hence, it doesn't have the exact same scope as "anarchism" -;) Once again the french socialists have coined this word already to mean a politician who willfully intervenes.
Willfully intervervenes in what sense? I am not arguing I am simply asking.
IMO, I think it is more focused than the general scope of anarchism, as it doesn't imply that *no* governence would exist (it would only imply to those who don't know enough about anarchism to realize anarchism would entail self-governence among individuals). It focuses on the core aspects of society being voluntary & non-coercive oriented, rather than the currently involuntary & coercive oriented society we live in. It would deduce that our current method of governance, & previous ones (specifically, a recent example being our consitutionalism) , have failed entirely to provide liberty & freedom as they are not voluntary (one cannot, at the time of birth, decide whether or not to agree to the constiution, etc.), & would go through many of the same insights of anarchism, but without having to jump through semantic hoops to distinguish itself from self-proclaimed anarchists who utilize coercive & violent action.
ryanpatgray: Stranger: M-la-maudite: Hmm, why not simply "voluntarist" in that case? it does, at least, have the virtue to refer to an existing philosophical concept... though it obviously doesn't only refer to a political but also to an epistemological stand; hence, it doesn't have the exact same scope as "anarchism" -;) Once again the french socialists have coined this word already to mean a politician who willfully intervenes. Willfully intervervenes in what sense? I am not arguing I am simply asking.
In french the world "volonté" means will, and "volontarisme" means the will of government is being imposed upon reality, in other words submitting reality to willpower.
or if we can't agree on voluntaryist how about Ama-gist :)?
I'm going to once again propose the term Plurarchy or Pluriarchy. It means the multiplicity and diversity of orders, which is an idea no one has so far even considered.
Stranger: I'm going to once again propose the term Plurarchy or Pluriarchy. It means the multiplicity and diversity of orders, which is an idea no one has so far even considered.
The only problem I would have with that is that is sounds (and looks) too much like plutocracy. Supporting plutocracy is something advocates of a free market are sometimes smeared with already.
I say market-based governance, and oppose it to democratic/rebuplican governance. Its vote per dollar rather than per person. The market will decide on how many governments there are and the quality and quantity of their service. It will only be capitalistic in that the protection of private property yeilds better real revenues for the governments that protect such, as opposed to socialist, fascist, mercantilist, or other governments.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Hey everybody,
You don't need to "reclaim" the word “anarchist” from the leftists. The leftist anarchists are your allies not your enemies. The vast majority of leftist anarchists have a philosophy that could very easily CO-EXIST with yours. I've participated in a “Black Bloc” but we specifically told each other NOT to damage private property. The point of a Black Bloc is to shut down the streets in a major city with a massive protest (usually an anti-war protest). PUBLIC property is often damaged (cop cars). Also, we specifically told each other to never hit a cop until after they started abusing us. The only people with us who didn't follow the “Non-aggression Principle” were either idiots who none of us knew or FBI infiltrators (most likely BOTH). The FBI infiltrate anarchists groups just so they can smash windows of private businesses and whatever else to make us look like psychopaths.
Read the anarcho-socialist manifesto named “ParEcon” and explain where that goes against your philosophy. There is no coercion involved. It's just about people choosing to work together. (On a side note, how are Howard Zinn and Chomsky statists at all?)
Also, the third largest group of anarchists, anarcho-primitists, just want to peacefully live off of the land and invite others to do the same. Without the state, they could do that. They don't want to forcefully take property from anyone else. But this does bring up the question: under the new society explained in the anarcho-capitalist essay “Chaos Theory”, who would own the property that tribal natives currently occupy? Would businesses continue to burn down their rainforests (or where-ever else depending on which natives we are talking about) just because the businesses bought the property from past governments?
Why can't we all just unite under the pure black flag. Do we really need the gold/black, red/black, green/black flags? The vast majority of anarchists can unite under the common “Non-aggression Principle.”
Peace, love, and unity!
Also, the third largest group of anarchists, anarcho-primitists, just want to peacefully live off of the land and invite others to do the same. Without the state, they could do that.
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."
Robin:You don't need to "reclaim" the word “anarchist” from the leftists. The leftist anarchists are your allies not your enemies.
No, they aren't.
Robin:The vast majority of leftist anarchists have a philosophy that could very easily CO-EXIST with yours.
No, they could not. They do not embrace private property rights. They are fixated on a false paradigm class struggle.
Robin:Read the anarcho-socialist manifesto named “ParEcon” and explain where that goes against your philosophy. There is no coercion involved.
Democracy is coercion.
Robin:Why can't we all just unite under the pure black flag. Do we really need the gold/black, red/black, green/black flags? The vast majority of anarchists can unite under the common “Non-aggression Principle.”
The reason why there are different flags, are due to our differences which sometimes are trivial, and sometimes very significant.
This is what I found about ParEcon on the net.
http://anticapitaliste.blogspot.com/
Albert argues both against the market and central planning as distributive methods in an egalitarian society.
That so doesn't go over well here, when we are pretty much all about the market. I don't want to express my preferences in a council. I don't want to be egalitarian. And I don't think people should be paid by how much effort they put in.
From what I read, ParEcon rejects the subjective theory of value, the market, and individual sovereignty. It reads like crank theory to me (no offense intended, but it is what it is...)
Robin: Hey everybody, You don't need to "reclaim" the word “anarchist” from the leftists. The leftist anarchists are your allies not your enemies. The vast majority of leftist anarchists have a philosophy that could very easily CO-EXIST with yours.
You don't need to "reclaim" the word “anarchist” from the leftists. The leftist anarchists are your allies not your enemies. The vast majority of leftist anarchists have a philosophy that could very easily CO-EXIST with yours.
Tell that to the Anarchism sub-reddit @ Reddit. An-cap is a dirty word, & anything remotley related (i.e. market anarchism, & even Voluntaryist) are looked down upon by a few select elitists who if given the chance, probably would instantly be in favor of private property if they were threatened by something (i.e. a call to not be a hypocrite, & give up their current private property in order to be more consistient, etc.). No, not until I see some efforts by the other anarchism movements to stop treating those who do not buy into "popular rhetoric" as idiots, which I really don't think will happen, seeing as most participants are probably only moonlighting as anarchists to sleep better at night under the watchful eye of The State.
Robin: Hey everybody, You don't need to "reclaim" the word “anarchist” from the leftists. The leftist anarchists are your allies not your enemies. The vast majority of leftist anarchists have a philosophy that could very easily CO-EXIST with yours. I've participated in a “Black Bloc” but we specifically told each other NOT to damage private property. The point of a Black Bloc is to shut down the streets in a major city with a massive protest (usually an anti-war protest). PUBLIC property is often damaged (cop cars). Also, we specifically told each other to never hit a cop until after they started abusing us. The only people with us who didn't follow the “Non-aggression Principle” were either idiots who none of us knew or FBI infiltrators (most likely BOTH). The FBI infiltrate anarchists groups just so they can smash windows of private businesses and whatever else to make us look like psychopaths. Read the anarcho-socialist manifesto named “ParEcon” and explain where that goes against your philosophy. There is no coercion involved. It's just about people choosing to work together. (On a side note, how are Howard Zinn and Chomsky statists at all?) Also, the third largest group of anarchists, anarcho-primitists, just want to peacefully live off of the land and invite others to do the same. Without the state, they could do that. They don't want to forcefully take property from anyone else. But this does bring up the question: under the new society explained in the anarcho-capitalist essay “Chaos Theory”, who would own the property that tribal natives currently occupy? Would businesses continue to burn down their rainforests (or where-ever else depending on which natives we are talking about) just because the businesses bought the property from past governments? Why can't we all just unite under the pure black flag. Do we really need the gold/black, red/black, green/black flags? The vast majority of anarchists can unite under the common “Non-aggression Principle.” Peace, love, and unity!
To quote specifically from the blog LS referred to:
“We work. This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But this new vision says that we ought to receive for our labours an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, with how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have endured at our work. We shouldn’t get more income by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice. This is morally appropriate and it also provides proper incentives due to rewarding only what we can affect, and not what we can’t.” Albert argues both against the market and central planning as distributive methods in an egalitarian society. Here he represents the anarchist critique that any centrally planned economic alternative to capitalism will replicate the failed bureaucracies of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. In contrast, Alex Callinicos defends the idea that we can plan how to use our resources, not just locally, but nationally and globally.
“We work. This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But this new vision says that we ought to receive for our labours an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, with how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have endured at our work. We shouldn’t get more income by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice. This is morally appropriate and it also provides proper incentives due to rewarding only what we can affect, and not what we can’t.”
Albert argues both against the market and central planning as distributive methods in an egalitarian society. Here he represents the anarchist critique that any centrally planned economic alternative to capitalism will replicate the failed bureaucracies of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. In contrast, Alex Callinicos defends the idea that we can plan how to use our resources, not just locally, but nationally and globally.
liberty student: No, they aren't.
Anyone who follows the NAP should be your ally. Demanding that anarchists should be isolated into separate groups is foolish and definitely not a winning strategy.
liberty student: No, they could not. They do not embrace private property rights. They are fixated on a false paradigm class struggle.
You can't just generalize an massive group like that. Most of them embrace property rights, just not the property that was already taken via government intervention.
liberty student: Democracy is coercion.
Show me one quote in that book that says democracy should be forced upon anyone. The full text of the book is available here: http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm
liberty student: I don't want to express my preferences in a council. I don't want to be egalitarian. And I don't think people should be paid by how much effort they put in.
I don't want to express my preferences in a council. I don't want to be egalitarian. And I don't think people should be paid by how much effort they put in.
ParEcon is about people choosing to join egalitarian societies. If people don't want to join them then they don't have to. If it is your philosophy that no one should be allowed to voluntarily join an egalitarian society then you are not a libertarian nor an anarchist.
Nitroadict:I'll need more time to decide on parEcon,
Thank you for at least spending time on it instead of immediately writing it off just because of what some random blog said about it. It's endorsed by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and it in no way endorses coercion.
Juan:How is the state preventing them ? Anybody can buy a plot of land and starve =]
That made me giggle. The primitist cultures that are being prevented to live that way are the natives who are being pushed off their land by governments. Not so much in this country anymore (since most were already murdered), but definitely in South America. And yes, I would consider native tribal cultures to be anarcho-primitists.
Peace,Robin
Nitroadict: Tell that to the Anarchism sub-reddit @ Reddit. An-cap is a dirty word, & anything remotley related (i.e. market anarchism, & even Voluntaryist) are looked down upon
Tell that to the Anarchism sub-reddit @ Reddit. An-cap is a dirty word, & anything remotley related (i.e. market anarchism, & even Voluntaryist) are looked down upon
I know what you mean... and it makes me sad that there is such a misunderstanding between the an-caps and the an-socs. I think most of the misunderstanding comes from the words "capitalism" and "socialism". People just don't understand that anarcho-capitalism is totally different than the capitalism that we see today and that anarcho-socialism is totally different than socialism.
Anyone who believes in the abolition of coercion should be viewed as an ally.
I'm capitalist all the way but more or less agree with Robin's point; there are more in-roads to be made by advancing anti-statism, rather than capitalism. Anarchy implies self-government, whose arrangements and alliances are constantly in revolution. The existence of socialists and capitalists in the same society does not result in war. It merely represents such economic arrangements both being economically sufficient to provide the capital (including labor/intelligence) necessary to protect their systems. Whether this means enforcing property rights or the enforcing the prohibition of such rights, such enforcement does not need to extend beyond those who choose to be self-governed in that manner; and thus does not require a resulting conflict.
I would disagree probably with Robin in saying that anarcho-socialists would be a rare breed, left to small groups, and never dominate in economic markets, presuming they even care to trade with capitalist sects. I don't think any view that capital ownership, and thus free allocation, exchange, and entitlement to resulting products, is not only morally unsound but economically unsound has much merit.
A better point, however, is to remember that Mises and Rothbard stressed the difference between economics and ethics. Economics was dedicated to producing the largest amount of consumable output. Ethics is concerned about the distribution of this output. Conflating these two naturally lead many to economic socialism or central planning when they simply favor charitable ethics. Furthermore conflating ethics with power leads to statism.
It is almost without doubt shown that the most free and sizeable experiments in capitalism have been the most successful economic systems ever practiced. Additionally, these same societies are generally the most charitable and ethical in the world. It seems socialism in any form is contrary to its own goals, a product of classist myths that proved untrue. However, why should anyone be required to believe me over someone else? There are no moral means to have people follow your wise choices instead of their own foolish ones. So long as self-government is maintained and property rights of non-socialists are respected, force is immoral, even if practical. Human action is designed to maximize psychic benefits, not economic ones. We can never know the correct choices to maximize others' happiness.
As a final point, the institution of marriage often imposes the collective principles of communists upon a couple (shared property, income, etc.), yet this leads to no conflict in the property rights of others or breakdown of the capitalist system...although it may be messy to disolve such unions.
It's endorsed by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and it in no way endorses coercion.
I think you'd better hide the fact that Chomsky endorses it. Most anarchists here, and especially left-libertarian ones, have very little patience for him.
Robin:Anyone who follows the NAP should be your ally. Demanding that anarchists should be isolated into separate groups is foolish and definitely not a winning strategy.
One would hope so, but the division is not just means, but also ends. For some people, non-aggression and collectivism are compatible. For some people non-aggression and democracy are compatible. I don't believe so. I think that ultimately communal property rights + democracy = tyranny.
Robin:You can't just generalize an massive group like that. Most of them embrace property rights, just not the property that was already taken via government intervention.
It's what they want to do with the property afterwards.
Robin:Show me one quote in that book that says democracy should be forced upon anyone. The full text of the book is available here: http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm
Thanks for the link. I'll take a look through it.
It doesn't matter if democracy is forced. As soon as a vote is taken, and the majority "win" over the minority you're no longer in a voluntary paradigm.
Robin:ParEcon is about people choosing to join egalitarian societies. If people don't want to join them then they don't have to. If it is your philosophy that no one should be allowed to voluntarily join an egalitarian society then you are not a libertarian nor an anarchist.
I don't really care what people join or what they do. Until they show up on my doorstep, demanding my home and my property. AnSocs are much more likely to do so than AnCaps.