Political Theory

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

allixpeeke — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:22:27 GMT

Nathyn:
You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom.

I reject that statism or aggression will, as means, yeild the ends of freedom.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

allixpeeke — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:14:20 GMT

Nathyn:
Brainpolice, culture is very, very dynamic. Consider the role that race and religion plays in politics. Humanity is not divided into two collectives: One against freedom, the other for it

Nathyn, freedom is an ends. It has no place on the political spectrum, which ought to be about means. Hence why I designed a spectrum which fully focuses on means, including non-aggressive individualism, non-aggressive collectivism, aggressive individualism, aggressive collectivism, and literally everything in-between. Therefore, we don't have to fight about "freedom," just the means of getting there.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

allixpeeke — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:54:49 GMT

Nathyn:
Yes, you appear to support the ridiculous "Reagan" spectrum of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom."

No.

Nathyn:
So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon?

No, anarcho-capitalism is a purely left-wing philosophy.

Nathyn:
Now, even if we go by the Libertarian model of two-axis:
*Social freedom

*Economic freedom

Nathyn, do you really want me to spell out for you my whole conception of the political spectrum? Because on my 2D spectrum, you will not see one axis dedicated to social freedom and another to economic freedom.

Hmm.

I'm just going to o ahead and post here the note I wrote to myself on Facebook on December 7th.

(Note: if you're not Nathyn, you need not bother read the rest of this post.)

"This is a brief note. I plan to work on this idea more, perhaps even writing an essay on the matter. This is not a debate.

"The most-used 2D spectrum has flaws. It ignores subtle nuances. It fails to take into account the most important struggle, that between non-aggession libertarian ethics and the acceptance of coercion. Instead, it separates this important struggle into two categories (economic and personal liberty), thus creating a false dichotomy!

"I propose a 2D spectrum wherein the horizontal axis represents ethics and the virtical axis represents autonomy.

"On the far left one will find ethical libertarianism. Everyone here advocates adherence to the non-aggression axiom. Voluntaryist anarcho-capitalists never force anarcho-communists to engage in trade, deal with money, or own stuff, and only ever use force as self-defense. Voluntaryist anarcho-communists never force anarcho-capitalists to join unions, deal in labour notes, or to give up their justly-acquired property, and only ever use force as self-defense.

"On the far right one will find ethical nihilism. Everyone here advocates adherence to the idea that might makes no wrong. People use whatever means they feel useful to enact whatever control they desire, including murder, rape, theft, slavery, battery, et cetera.

"On the far top one will find individualism. On the far bottom one will find collectivism.

"As such, anarcho-capitalists are located on the top/left portion of the spectrum, anarcho-communists (at least those of whom are actually dedicated to voluntaryism) on the bottom/left, fascists and Stalinists on the bottom/right, and nihilists on the top/right.

"I'll map this out in more detail someday. For now, it'll stay in my head.

"(If a third axis is to be added, it might differentiate natural law with utilitarianism. Although that may lead to some difficulties since the two are not mutually exclusive.)

"This spectrum/idea is Copyright © 2007 Alex Peak."

Nathyn:
Now, if we judge ideologies based upon their intentions as you propose,

Where do I propose this?

Nathyn:
You simply cannot judge ideologies based upon models which are skewed by your own ideology

Which is why I decided to come up with a different spectrum, one which does not presume individualism to be better than collectivism or vice versa, one which acknowledges the possible existence of nihilists and of voluntaryist communists, and one which does not presume that those found in the corners hold ideologies which consist of combinations of ideologies held by those in adjacent corners--in short, one that everybody can live with. Is it perfect? No spectrum can be, but it hits upon everything which would be essential for me.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

allixpeeke — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:23:28 GMT

Brainpolice:
Well I don't consider myself "right-wing" at all. If anything, I'm a cultural "leftist" and I associate "the right" with economic fascism or corporatism rather then property rights and free markets. And so long as such communists are actually voluntarists, I have no objection in principle, only one of personal preferance.

Ditto.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Inquisitor — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:18:38 GMT

I've read some articles by Cohen. Even if one doesn't agree with him, he is a good writer and a clear thinker. Regarding the book Danny mentioned, one should read it but also look up Eric Mack's detailed response to it, as well as (and I shudder to say this) Palmer's.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Donny with an A — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:51:40 GMT

You guys might be interested in reading G. A. Cohen's book, Self Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cohen's not really a Marxist, but given that no one important is really a Marxist anymore, a prominent socialist like Cohen is probably the sort of person you guys should be concerned with. Having read part of the book, I can tell you it's very well written and well thought out, and poses a lot of questions which directly concern libertarian ideas (the book is largely a response to Nozick). Before you go off ranting against socialists, you should probably check out what socialists actually think, because it sounds like they're getting an undeserved reputation around here.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Brainpolice — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:39:50 GMT

A comment if I may: Actually I do grant that a socialist can have regaurd for freedom. But they have to be voluntary socialists, which is a rare phenomenon. But socialism in the statist context of the word is not compatible with any kind of freedom. Even if it could be said to maintain freedom as its ends, it supports violations of freedom as it means, and is therefore self-contradictary. One cannot be said to support freedom when they are in favor of means that directly contradict the ends of freedom. Freedom cannot come from strategies that violate it in principle. And this criticism does not apply exclusively to socialists, as I see many right-libertarians and even some anarcho-capitalists as running into the exact same problem.

The problem with Marx, among other things, is that his strategic view for reaching the ultimate end of a stateless, classless society was incompatible with his goal. That is, Marx advocated statism as a means to reach a theoretical future anarchy. Marx proposed state control of property in the name of worker's control of property, not understanding that the nature of the state (namely, that the state and the workers are mutually exclusive) makes this self-contradictary and counterproductive to his own goal. This is where the traditional anarchists, at least those with half a brain, and Marxists differ. Interestingly enough, although in a somewhat different context (market anarchism), this is also where agorists and political anarchists differ.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Juan — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:29:51 GMT

Nathyn:
Just as Economic Liberalism can be understood as "radical economic liberalism," to the point that some of its supporters eventually broke off to become Fascists, Socialism Liberalism can be understood as "radical social liberalism,"

I don't know what you're talking about. What is 'Socialism Liberalism' ?? A new compound noun ??
Also, there's no such thing as 'economic liberalism'. You should know better than trying to use a fallacious classification as argument.

Marx himself had a strong regard for freedom,

Yes, he was srongly bent on destroying it.

You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom

What if I do ? Is there a law against it ? Anyway, here's Bakunin talking about Marx.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/index.htm

"Marx naturally has managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church, composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restricted though it may be on the score of numbers, is skillfully organised, and thanks to its numerous connections with working-class organizations in all the principal places in Germany, it has already become a power. Karl Marx naturally enjoys an almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must be admitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents in such way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination of the workers of Germany."

That's just a sample. ..

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Nathyn — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:34:37 GMT

Juan:
Nathyn:
It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Classical economics' labor theory of value, but reject Liberalism.
Marx, thank God, is dead. So there's nothing he can accept or reject now. The fact that Marx 'accepted' a wrong theory of value only shows that he was a pretty bad economist, if he deserved to be called an economist at all. His rejection of liberalism shows that he was a totalitarian.

Your picture shows how you think that one thinker influenced another. But there's absolutely no proof for your claim. And at any rate, liberalism, the real one, is not something arbitrarily created by a bunch of writers, however brilliant they were.

Labeling Spencer as 'economic liberalism' seems to hint that you're rather confused...

Just as Economic Liberalism can be understood as "radical economic liberalism," to the point that some of its supporters eventually broke off to become Fascists, Socialism Liberalism can be understood as "radical social liberalism," that broke off from Liberalism very early in the history of Liberalism, to become authoritarian Socialism and Anarchism -- two ideas very different and in many ways opposed to Liberalism.

But there is absolutely no denying the influence of Classical Liberalism and Classical economics on Marx, because he regularly invoked them in the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Marxism is almost entirely based upon the work of Smith and Ricardo -- what Marx did was interpret their ideas differently. He invoked a primitive understanding of the problems with "perfect competition" (which you agree with) and "perfect information" (which you agree with) and "perfect equilibrium" (which you agree with) and the idea that markets never have any overall problems -- again, something you agree with. On the last statement, whenever you're accused of being utopian idealists, you respond, "Markets wouldn't be perfect under anarchism," -- you just think it would be a lot better.

Marx himself had a strong regard for freedom, but like Nietzsche, he saw the mere establishment of marginal non-aggression as leading to overall infringements upon freedom.

From the Communist Manifesto:

(Capitalism) has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of he numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Donny with an A — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:51:27 GMT

I want the goods first, I'm good for it.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Niccolò — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:17:40 GMT

Wire it to my pay-pal, prz.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Donny with an A — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:05:31 GMT

Okay, I'm not really paying attention to what's going on, but are people actually objecting to Nathyn's statement that Marx accepted Classical economics' labor theory of value, but rejected liberalism? I mean, Marx did get the labor theory of value from Classical economics, and he did reject liberalism, so...

P.S. I actually think I would pay to see Niccolo try to confront one of Nathyn's professors.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Niccolò — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:03:06 GMT

Juan:
Nathyn:
It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Classical economics' labor theory of value, but reject Liberalism.
Marx, thank God, is dead. So there's nothing he can accept or reject now. The fact that Marx 'accepted' a wrong theory of value only shows that he was a pretty bad economist, if he deserved to be called an economist at all. His rejection of liberalism shows that he was a totalitarian.

Your picture shows how you think that one thinker influenced another. But there's absolutely no proof for your claim. And at any rate, liberalism, the real one, is not something arbitrarily created by a bunch of writers, however brilliant they were.

Labeling Spencer as 'economic liberalism' seems to hint that you're rather confused...

I still want to see who his professors are so I can contact the dean of his school and inform him that they are not doing their jobs.

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Juan — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:50:20 GMT

Nathyn:
It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Classical economics' labor theory of value, but reject Liberalism.

Marx, thank God, is dead. So there's nothing he can accept or reject now. The fact that Marx 'accepted' a wrong theory of value only shows that he was a pretty bad economist, if he deserved to be called an economist at all. His rejection of liberalism shows that he was a totalitarian.

Your picture shows how you think that one thinker influenced another. But there's absolutely no proof for your claim. And at any rate, liberalism, the real one, is not something arbitrarily created by a bunch of writers, however brilliant they were.

Labeling Spencer as 'economic liberalism' seems to hint that you're rather confused...

Re: Was Rothbard an anarchist?

Nathyn — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:29:56 GMT

Brainpolice:
Classifying ideologies under your model would involve either failing to make a distinction between ideologies by calling them all "left-wing" or it would involve tenuously classifying ideologies as right-wing, simply because you don't agree with them.

No. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are not even a political axis (or any axis) in my spectrum. They are just culture. Classifying idelogies under my model does no such thing. Both "left-wing" and "right-wing" can be either libertarian or statist depending on what means are advocated towards those preferences.

For example, you can have libertarian racists who simply take a voluntarist approach. And you can have statist racists who do not. Even working under the assumption that racism is inherently "right-wing", this "right-wing" tendency is not uniformly classified as one or the other. It can fall under either a libertarian or statist paradime depending on the means advocated.

LEFT (good, free, fair, just)

RIGHT (evil, unfree, unfair, unjust)

But that proposal is just absurd, no matter what your ideology is and no matter what definitions of goodness, freedom, fairness, or justice you appeal to.

If you were paying attention at all, this is not my proposal. Left and right are a completely different, if not irrelevant, axis. My proposal is that up/down is liberty vs. politics, and left and right are simply cultural preferences on the road between the two that can either be compatible or incompatible depending on what means one advocates or supports towards obtaining them. My spectrum does not even really grant that left/right is an axis, since it just consumer demand or personal preferance.

I wish I had a picture to paste illustrate what I mean. Imagine a verticle line with voluntarism and pluralism at the bottom, and force and monocentrism at the top. Then, without actually drawing a horizontal axis, simply place the words "cultural left" on the left end and "cultural right" on the right end. That's my spectrum.

Feminists, anti-racists, anti-buisiness types, and so on, on the "cultural left" can theoretically fall anywhere on my axis depending on their actual politics (means). I do not consider those things to be actual political positions in themselves so much as personal preferences. Politics deals with the institutional framework and the means that such preferences are persued with.

Brainpolice, culture is very, very dynamic. Consider the role that race and religion plays in politics. Humanity is not divided into two collectives: One against freedom, the other for it.

Instead, politics are a dynamic web of influence involving individual ideas. It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Ricardo's labor theory of value, but reject Laissez-faire. Milton Friedman can accept Keynes' AD/AS model, but reject Socialism. In either case, it's about what individuals themselves think -- not our own collectivist generalizations based on what we think of such ideas.

To see a good idea of how this model would work, see Ishkur's Guide to Electronic music. We regularly invoke the web model in popular discourse when we say "such and such person was influenced by such and such other ideologies" and don't look at them strictly as left\right.

To give you a perhaps better example than Iskur's electronic music guide, here's how I see the development of Liberalism:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7520/liberalideologywebse9.jpg

(That's a very, very rough diagram. I tossed it together quickly right now -- it's somewhat inaccurate and missing a lot of important stuff.)

The point is that if we treat political theory as something developed by individuals, who are very different from person to person, you cannot make such collectivist generalizations as "The Classical Liberals," and "The Libertarians" and so on -- or even worse "The Left" and "The Right." Such generalizations are useful, but largely inaccurate and definitely inaccurate if you rely on them as descriptions of collective ideas rather than generalizations about individual ideas.