GilesStratton: kiba:We reject authority but we do not reject leadership. The two are the same things.
kiba:We reject authority but we do not reject leadership.
The two are the same things.
You're so so wrong here. Leadership is not necessarily authority; imagine you are in a group of four people. One person has greater "leadership qualities"; charisma, courage etc. This leads to this person being followed by others. The group may be easily left, and possibly joined (depending on how people feel about others). This person may be able to tell others what to do, but when i say "tell" it is clear that as anyone can leave the group at any point, they only do the action when they feel that they themselves are deriving a requisite benefit from it, or remaining in the group in the long run will give them a benefit which makes whatever cost the action comparatively low. What I am very inarticulately saying is that it is clear that there can be voluntary leadership. Authority has altogether different connotations; in the context of the state, there is violent coercion backing up any one of its commands/orders.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
This whole post never really got past a mental masturbation exercise of semantics.
I'll take a position: anarchy in general is a waste of time because claims to property rights have already been established. Even Rothbard can't get around it.
Every case for anarchy is some life-in-a-vacuum thought experiment that terminates at determining who lays claim to what. So you degrade into argument around how it is that property rights have come to pass and you begin to realize how arbitrary the initial claim was. Then you observe that government is protector of these claims and therefore government is simply protecting a claim that was in turn arbitrary to begin, so all governmental authority must be arbitrary as well. Because why else would we have government if someone weren't trying to protect their claims to property?
The above logic game is a world in which Hobbes described [and it's fairly dismal view of the world] and this is where Locke becomes very useful. You don't have to have a concept of "collectivism" to have a social contract theory. You just have to have an understanding that the game theory behind property rights is a game played over and over and over again. And eventually you terminate at a point where you decide it's too costly to constantly protect your claims to property and hire someone else to do it (which entails assigning a portion of your property to compensate for that protection).
I'm not going to rewrite all of social contract theory to fill in the holes in the explination -- reading classical liberalism will get you well on your way. I find the attachment to anarchy as backsliding on the cause for liberty.
jtermine: I'll take a position: anarchy in general is a waste of time because claims to property rights have already been established. Even Rothbard can't get around it.
Could you expand on that? What can't Rothbard get around?
jtermine: Every case for anarchy is some life-in-a-vacuum thought experiment that terminates at determining who lays claim to what. So you degrade into argument around how it is that property rights have come to pass and you begin to realize how arbitrary the initial claim was. Then you observe that government is protector of these claims and therefore government is simply protecting a claim that was in turn arbitrary to begin, so all governmental authority must be arbitrary as well. Because why else would we have government if someone weren't trying to protect their claims to property?
We currently have governments because most people think it's okay to use force to fulfill their arbitrary wishes. They don't only desire protection. If they did, there was no government because protecting oneself does not imply a monopoly over that service.
And claims over property are not arbitrary at all. As Kinsella points out, the "first to homestead is the rightful owner" principle is the only consistent and non-arbitrary principle in establishing property rights.
jtermine: The above logic game is a world in which Hobbes described [and it's fairly dismal view of the world] and this is where Locke becomes very useful. You don't have to have a concept of "collectivism" to have a social contract theory. You just have to have an understanding that the game theory behind property rights is a game played over and over and over again. And eventually you terminate at a point where you decide it's too costly to constantly protect your claims to property and hire someone else to do it (which entails assigning a portion of your property to compensate for that protection).
Yes, I either hire someone to protect my property or do it myself (or my family, friends). Is this a social contract? No, I can protect my rights without even discussing the matter with my neighbors. What I don't get is where the government fits into this picture.
jtermine: I'm not going to rewrite all of social contract theory to fill in the holes in the explination -- reading classical liberalism will get you well on your way. I find the attachment to anarchy as backsliding on the cause for liberty.
Anarcho-capitalists propose a system that is less coercive, has better fault-tolerance and is less arbitrary than minimal state/government. Why do you dismiss it as "backsliding on the cause for liberty"? Remember this is not a punk band or a hippie crowd discussing ways of going rampant, or a bunch of socialists arguing for equality in everything.
And as far as I'm concerned, I do have some concerns about anarcho-capitalism (regarding its stability for example), there's no blind attachment. But I still think it's the best thing so far.
jtermine:And eventually you terminate at a point where you decide it's too costly to constantly protect your claims to property and hire someone else to do it (which entails assigning a portion of your property to compensate for that protection).
This argument does not lead to the reinforcement of a monopolistic social contract. It leads to demand for arbiters and means of defense.
This is a joke, right? You simply dismiss rational designation of property titles as arbitrary and private protection thereof as impossible without addressing made arguments, and yet you're willing to unhesitatingly concede to social contract theory, the greatest superstition in the history of western thought?...
lmfao
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Who in the world are the anarcho-capitalists?
Wasn't 'safety net' Hayek, or anyone like him.
Where are these 'anarcho-capitalists', other than living in Mom's basement when not at their day jobs at the call center?
There are no examples of anarcho capitalism on earth, not even the UK's very own stem the brain drain Caymans.
The US barely has 'mixed economies' capitalism, much less 'capitalism.' Half the folks who throw the term anarcho-capitalism around think they are redundantly repeating the same word.
The US once claimed to have something called 'mixed economies.' The very top of the List of Mixed Economizer Things To Do used to have, in bold letters, "1] BEWARE OF MONOPOLISTIC CONCENTRATED POWER." SOmewhere along the way, the addition of 'guns' to 'monopolists' has made them invisible to our mixed economies sensibilities. If monopolies are bad, then monoplies with guns (ie, GSEs) are downright aweful.
Indeed, what just happened in the US was based on monopolists with guns, our version of soft crony fascism, being used to brush aside 50 sets of more stirngent state banking and lending regulations in court case after court case and even USSC court case, and replacing them with a OneSizeFitsAll, AllOurEggsInOneBasket, SEC EXEMPT/AGENCY RATED FNMA singular federal experiment. If FNMA had been one of 50 experiments and it have blown up, none of the recent sturm und drang would have made it past P8 of any local paper. It was precisely the monopolies wityh guns nature of FNMA that just crapped on almost every mortgage and portfolio in the nation. None of that financial enginerring genius 'securitized mortgage bundle' nonsense was possible without the golden imprimateur of SEC EXEMPT/AGENCY RATED GSE monopolists with guns.
Hamfisted, heavy handed centrally planned command 'THE ECONOMY running constructivist nonsense lit this fire, and now we are handing Exxon Speedpasses to the arsonists and asking them to put out the fire.
Has anyone using the term ever actually 'primed a pump?' The process explains the deer in headlights look on '2009...2010...maybe 2011...' Paul Krugman's face. If private investment is not induced by all this 'pump priming', then what follows is yet more calls for ... pump priming. Krugman figures the US can borrow maybe $5T, tops, and then the pump is on its own. So, I hope he has a firm economic model handle on the motivations of beast building capitalist risk takers, as opposed to carcass carving capitalists. I think it's just as likely that the beast builders take one good whiff at the insane free-for-some the tribe is trying to throw and simply pass on the opportunity to risk future skin on this graceless, clawing mess.
If we can actually move closer to the model where the 8-4 shift is taxed to pay for the 4-12 shift, and the 4-12 shift is taxed to pay for the 12-8 shift, and the 12-8 shift is taxed to pay for the 8-4 shift, and make it work without beast building capitalism, then maybe this current nonsense has a prayer.
The current crisis in the US is a crisis of crony fascism, the running of the economy by the cronyfest on the potomac. They're scared that all the connected at the hip crony fascism, the Wall Street/K Street toadies bolted up tot he guns of government in AMericas own version of soft fascism, in place since WWII, is at risk. The GOP and the Democrats had to circle the wagons and 'do something', or take the hit for screwing the pooch with all the mixed economies since 1933 goodness running amok. Its pretty hard to claim, with a straight face, "Not enough regulation" when it was FNMA GSEs used to brush aside 50 sets of more stringent state banking and lending regulations in documented court case after court case. And yet, they did, and it was mostly bought.
Well, OK. We get to find out if all this crap actually floats now.
regards,
Fred
Brainpolice:People do not become your defacto slave as soon as they walk on your lawn.
They're not slaves because they can walk off my lawn.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Competitive Rulers is Nonsense. You can't start competing with a ruler if you're not a ruler already. If someone rules you, you don't compete with him, unless you're up for a revolution. Saying otherwise amounts to settling with state to state competition. Or like arguing that from now on no new companies will be formed, is that true competition?
Competitive Rulers is Nonsense.
You can't start competing with a ruler if you're not a ruler already. If someone rules you, you don't compete with him, unless you're up for a revolution. Saying otherwise amounts to settling with state to state competition. Or like arguing that from now on no new companies will be formed, is that true competition?
Says who? Not the dictionary.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What? A mentor rules over the person? Nonsense!
In one sense, yes.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You realize that I'm just going to hound you with this, don't you?
Knock yourself out.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:People do not become your defacto slave as soon as they walk on your lawn. They're not slaves because they can walk off my lawn.
Missing the point again - the fact that they can walk off your lawn doesn't give you carte blanch to do absolutely whatever you want to them so long as they are on your lawn. Otherwise, the logical implication of this is that I can shoot kids for playing in my front yard and lock people up in my dungeon for entering my property.
liberty student:No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
Views, not labels.
liberty student:Giles was good for awhile there, but he's really missed the point lately, and that's leading him into conflict with people who aren't his enemies, naturally or intentionally.
The thing is, besides not being accurate. AnCapitalism is just about the word label anybody could invent for a movement. It's an ugly word to begin with, not particularly easy to say. Then the leftists will say that you're not a real anarchist if you're a capitalist pig, and everybody else will think you're a silly little child rebelling against authority etc.
So, besides being inaccurate, it's bad PR.
liberty student:For a brief period of time, GS seemed to have overcome his lust for being dominated by a stronger, and yet infinitely more evil man. But then he found Hoppe. And went from reading Mises AND Rothbard while exploring others, to, Hoppe this, Hoppe that.
Funny, I've read more Mises and Rothbard than I have Hoppe.
GilesStratton:In one sense, yes.
GilesStratton:Knock yourself out.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:What? A mentor rules over the person? Nonsense! GilesStratton:In one sense, yes.In no sense. Knight_of_BAAWA:You realize that I'm just going to hound you with this, don't you? GilesStratton:Knock yourself out.I certainly will. Because you need to show that a mentor rules over a person.
Does not the student voluntarily decide his mentor is a source of authority over the craft and/or subject the student desires to learn? It's not hard to imagine the mentor ruling to some extent over the student, at least socially.
"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
Knight_of_BAAWA:I certainly will. Because you need to show that a mentor rules over a person.
He does, albeit voluntarily. He decides what the student will learn and how the student will learn it, he is ruling, in one sense, over the student.
GilesStratton:He does, albeit voluntarily.
GilesStratton:He decides what the student will learn and how the student will learn it
Nitroadict:Does not the student voluntarily decide his mentor is a source of authority over the craft and/or subject the student desires to learn?
Knight_of_BAAWA:The mentor assists, helps, and guides the person in what the person wants to learn. The mentor offers advice. The mentor is not, in any sense, ruling over the student.
And yet to rule is defined, by the dictionary as one who guides.
GilesStratton: The thing is, besides not being accurate. AnCapitalism is just about the word label anybody could invent for a movement.
The thing is, besides not being accurate. AnCapitalism is just about the word label anybody could invent for a movement.
Sure. But I'm more concerned with what I am doing than what I call myself. I leave that to the left-libertarians to spend all day semantically debating labels and who came first and which way Rothbard leaned, and so on and so forth. AnCaps are too busy writing articles and building websites, and raising money and printing books, and holding conferences, and providing scholarships to focus on the mundane and trivial.
Also, I am partial to Panarchist. Michael Rozeff has written another good article on it at LRC today. Good enough to send around to some left-liberal friends and get their interest and curiosity going...
But really, I believe in private property including capital and I believe in voluntarism. When I am dead, you guys can figure out what to carve in my headstone.
PS, nice to see you. I was worried you might have left us, and eloped with Benito.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Nitroadict:Does not the student voluntarily decide his mentor is a source of authority over the craft and/or subject the student desires to learn? Yes, and that's not ruling over the person in any manner.
How? I find it absurd that this is somehow excused as not ruling. It may not be purley coercive ruling, in the sense of domination, but it's certaintly ruling. Isn't there a relationship of (social) power between the mentor and student, or any voluntary interaction for that matter?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, and that's not ruling over the person in any manner.
Nitroadict:How?
Nitroadict: Isn't there a relationship of (social) power between the mentor and student, or any voluntary interaction for that matter?
GilesStratton:And yet to rule is defined, by the dictionary as one who guides.
I don't see what the big deal is here. Words change meaning over time. It is pretty clear what Anarcho-capitalism means, I think, unless you have a specific goal to obfuscate the meaning.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Nitroadict:Does not the student voluntarily decide his mentor is a source of authority over the craft and/or subject the student desires to learn? Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, and that's not ruling over the person in any manner. Nitroadict:How?How is it? That one person looks up to another and asks for some advice and guidance does not mean that one is ruling over the other. Nitroadict: Isn't there a relationship of (social) power between the mentor and student, or any voluntary interaction for that matter?Only to those who believe in class warfare.
It's class warfare to observe that individuals have social power (i.e. influence) amongst each other ? What? Please elaborate.
It's class warfare to assume that "social power" = "ruling".
GilesStratton: ... and everybody else will think you're a silly little child rebelling against authority etc.
... and everybody else will think you're a silly little child rebelling against authority etc.
Not everybody. Just your conservative buddies.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:The mentor assists, helps, and guides the person in what the person wants to learn. The mentor offers advice. The mentor is not, in any sense, ruling over the student. GilesStratton:And yet to rule is defined, by the dictionary as one who guides.And yet that's not ruling. You're conflating tenses, i.e. equivocating. I would've hoped that you'd've learned that by now.
No, I'm not. A ruler is defined as one who guides. Now, granted, this can be coercive, and usually is. But it needn't be.
GilesStratton:No, I'm not. A ruler is defined as one who guides.
GilesStratton: Really, it is. Defintion of anarchism: The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. Or, Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell). In regards to the first, a defintion of government: the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government. Now a definition of the word govern: to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: Or, to have predominating influence. The second defintion of anarchism needs no elaboration. I wonder where PDAs fit into all of this. Better yet: The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", Definitions, "ruler": a person who rules or governs; sovereign. To rule: to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over
Really, it is.
Defintion of anarchism:
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Or,
Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
In regards to the first, a defintion of government:
the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
Now a definition of the word govern:
to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:
to have predominating influence.
The second defintion of anarchism needs no elaboration.
I wonder where PDAs fit into all of this.
Better yet:
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",
Definitions, "ruler":
a person who rules or governs; sovereign.
To rule:
to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over
You're quite right. Anarcho-capitalism is indeed a misnomer. A few weeks ago, I proposed the term "eklektarchy" instead, which a few others have taken a liking to:
It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon." Eklektos means, in Greek, "the freedom to choose." Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of "eclectic" (which means "composed of elements drawn from various sources.") I think "eklektarchy" is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from "anarchy" (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.).
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
Knight_of_BAAWA: GilesStratton:No, I'm not. A ruler is defined as one who guides.Equivocation.
No, it isn't.
Freiheit:It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon."
I wasn't too keen on the word at first, but it's a nice sounding word without the awkwardness of anarcho - capitalism. So yes, I believe it's a sound and accurate word.
Freiheit:I proposed the term "eklektarchy" instead
I don't like the term, its pretty hard to pronounce and it sounds absolutely horrendous, two "k" sounds in four syllables doesn't make for a pleasent sounding word.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I showed that it is an equivocation, Giles. You're simply trolling now.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I showed that it is an equivocation, Giles. You're simply trolling now.
We're all trolls now, if the term is going to be thrown around every 2 posts.
Nitroadict: Knight_of_BAAWA: I showed that it is an equivocation, Giles. You're simply trolling now. We're all trolls now, if the term is going to be thrown around every 2 posts.
Gotta agree here:
Stop calling eachother trolls, please, it becomes more grating than the "trolling" itself.
No, you haven't.
Freiheit:It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon." Eklektos means, in Greek, "the freedom to choose." Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of "eclectic" (which means "composed of elements drawn from various sources.") I think "eklektarchy" is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from "anarchy" (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.).
It seems like a nice word etymologically if it's usage was ever spread. Based on the concerns others have raised, would you be willing to modernize the word to Eclectarchy or Eclectarcy in order to make pronounciation easier?
well, Autarchy might be your word , but i really like shoving capitalism in there. so if i was to drop anarcho-capitalism in favour for another catch all, maybe i'd go for autarcho-capitalism.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: well, Autarchy might be your word , but i really like shoving capitalism in there. so if i was to drop anarcho-capitalism in favour for another catch all, maybe i'd go for autarcho-capitalism.
Yeah, my problem is with the anarchism part not the capitalism part.
I have to agree with NUK. I'm partial to the word capitalism, if for no other reason than to make it clear I have no compatibility with anti-capitalism.
Capitalism may have it's detractors, but they are the very people I am at odds against. Market Anarchism is a narrow definition, used only within the narrowest orders. Anarchism has much more negative connotation than Capitalism.
Re-inventing the wheel when it comes to names can be someone else''s job. The way to make progress is to do. Libertarian Papers is an example of doing. The books in the Mises store, are doing. Mises Circles held nationally, doing. That's real, it's effective and it's working.
It doesn't really matter what we call ourselves. But if I have to call myself something, I like anarcho-capitalism so those in the know understand I align with Hoppe, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and the Austrian school at large.