C4SS argues for, among other things, a freed market anti-capitalism. It is because of this that we are regarded as grotesque by some and misguided, even “dangerous”, by others. Curiously, we charitably agree. We see ourselves as attempting to navigate in new territory without a map, only a compass and wanderlust as guides.
Our compass is discourse. Our wanderlust is to see a world where no one is pushed around.
It is from this expressed sensitivity to the push or the feel of our cultural-structural contexts that we can not help but listen to more sides of an issue than may be warranted or to assume sincerity where none may exists. This places us in the weird position of being in a sense friends with those who regard us as “enemies” and being enemies with those who regard us as “friends”. As Roderick T. Long explains:
To be a proponent of [freed market anti-capitalism] is to be perpetually (well, until the revolution) at odds both with mainstream libertarianism and with its critics, urging the former to recover its original leftist goals and the latter to recognise its proper leftist effects.
We have reached out to two of our sites friendly sparring partners, Null Void and PeaceRequiresAnarchy, and asked them if they would like to participate in a C4SS Mutual Exchange:
Mutual Exchange is the Center’s goal in two senses — we favor a society rooted in peaceful, voluntary cooperation, and we seek to foster understanding through ongoing dialogue.
Mutual Exchange will provide opportunities for conversation about issues that matter to the Center’s various publics. A lead essay, deliberately provocative, will be followed by responses from inside and outside of C4SS. Contributions and comments from readers are enthusiastically encouraged.
They have both agreed, but with a condition – that they be allowed to talk openly and publicly with each other prior to settling on any one position for a Mutual Exchange.
We were impressed by this condition. As indicated, our compass is discourse and discourse begins with palaver:
Another reflex is to call a general assembly at the slightest sign of movement, and vote. This is a mistake. The business of voting and deciding a winner, is enough to turn the assembly into a nightmare, into a theater where all the various little pretenders to power confront each other. Here we suffer from the bad example of bourgeois parliaments. An assembly is not a place for decisions but for palaver, for free speech exercised without a goal. –The Coming Insurrection
It is in this spirit that C4SS would like to present its first Palaver and because of it is a continued point of contention, curiosity and controversy, we have directed the first volleys of this discussion towards the questions: What is capitalism and is it compatible with anarchism?
The expected arrangement between our participants will be an ongoing discussion or interview in the comment section of this post for the rest of the month of August, 2012. It will hopefully culminate in a fruitful series of Mutual Exchanges articulating where each stands or what each has learned.
We also extend this offer to our readers, feel free to participate in the Palaver. If you would also like to contribute a Mutual Exchange article, then email faq@c4ss.org
What is capitalism and is it compatible with anarchism?
It started with Ayn Rand.
Wait, don't go!
…I got better…
Just hear me out, okay?
As I was saying, it starts with Ayn Rand. I was a Junior in high school. It was The Fountainhead that converted me. Until the economic crash, I was an Objectivist-though never following the ARI or Atlas Society. Even then, I had misgivings about the wars; mainly though, I had it in for the Religious Right. One economic crash later, I was lost; my entire worldview was shattered in crash of '08. I thought the downturn would be minor, mitigated by a fresh injection of liquidity that would inflate the next bubble. But, I never expected the system to just fall apart. I still had the notion that capitalism was self-correcting. I also thought it synonymous with the free market.
Between that and the Tea Party fever that the mainstream libertarian movement went on, I gave up on it. For a while, I drifted into Obama's fan club. Then I flirted with democratic socialism and social anarchism. But, I never felt like I belonged. Also active on the Richard Dawkins forum, I also could not stand the anti-libertarian verbiage. From time to time, I felt the need to mention I was once one…and I had no shame in it. To no avail.
I then discovered Kevin Carson. While I was flirting with left-libertarianism generally, I have since come to full-blown anarchism. I am currently reading the famous 'An Anarchist FAQ', to get my bearings.
To this day, I feel no shame in where I came from. Nor do I feel pride. I also bear no ill-will to the mainstream libertarian movement. (I do feel frustrated from time to time!) I do not consider it anarchist. At its best, it is liberal. Radical liberalism even. But, as will become clear, anti-statism alone does not an anarchist make.
I look forward to Peace's story.
This sounds like a great idea. I am impressed that C4SS is making a move to get commenters involved. Indeed, I think it really captures the spirit of anarchism. This debate should be educational for those of us who are newer to the anarchist movement.
Here's an essay I published a while back — it's my take; hope it aids in the discussion. I will say my view has been modified somewhat since the publication of MARKETS NOT CAPITALISM. That's one excellent, well put together book!
http://strike-the-root.com/72/knight/knight4.html
Welcome to the Rebel Alliance, Mr. Knight. You also write/wrote for Liberty for All, right?
Thanks for joining in Dave. You've always been one of my favorite commenters.
I also hope it would be educational for "an"-caps (as well as an-"caps") as well. I personally think the feud between them and anarchism proper has gone on long enough. If nothing else, the level of discussion will be elevated.
I don't think the two sides have to be enemies. As long as boundaries between them are established and understood, collaboration on issues of shared concern (ie war, out of control cops, etc) could proceed.
First, I just have to convince "an"-caps that they aren't anarchists, though I will not doubt their anti-statism. Generosity to human nature and all that.
Three years ago, in August 2009, I was about to enter my senior year of high school. My knowledge of politics was essentially limited to the view that Democrats are caring, charitable people who like to help the poor, while Republicans are selfish people who like the military. I was leaning towards being a Democrat, although not with much conviction since I knew that there was probably some more to politics than this. I had recently experienced Barrack Obama defeat John McCain and was happy that Obama won given the above.
I chose to take AP US Government and Politics that year because I realized that I knew very little about politics and had never taken any time to put any thought into determining my own politics views. Since I knew many people who thought that politics was very important, I decided that determining my political views was something that I ought to do.
The class featured many student debates on many political topics. Two of my very intelligent classmates–a liberal Democrat and a libertarian–often dominated these discussions and made them extremely educational for me as I mostly listened on. It was a struggle for me to determine which of their two worldviews I thought was more accurate (or moral?). On nearly every issue it seemed they disagreed. Eventually, as I learned from the many discussions what their principles were, I learned to predict what each of their views would be on particular yet-to-be discussed issues. Yet I was still very unsure as to which one of them I agreed with on each issue. This bothered me greatly. I needed to know: what was right?
One assignment in the class was to watch Barrack Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQVkyFZT-Y ).
My journey to libertarian anarchism (from uncertainty—I had no prior political views) began when I watched Obama give the speech live on CBS on the night of January 27, 2010.
The speech upset me. I was upset by the fact that his entire speech was rhetoric, that he failed to say much of anything of substance, and that all he did was try to appeal to the emotions of his audience as if they were not intelligent enough to hear anything else. I was upset by the fact that it was just a show. The way the Republicans and Democrats either clapped or didn’t clap in response to each of his silly comments bothered me.
For example, at 6:29 in the video:
“And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise. It begins with our economy. Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it –(applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.) But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.”
I forced myself to sit through the rest of the hour-plus propaganda speech, despite how I was learning nothing and despite how torturous it was to watch.
That night, when the speech was over, I Googled “libertarian.” I had only recently learned that this was the term that embodied the views of my libertarian classmate and I was interested to learn more. That night all I read was the Libertarian Party website, but I let my classmate know that I was interested in learning more. I found out that he was no longer a libertarian in the sense that most members of the Libertarian Party are libertarians, but instead was a libertarian anarchist.
…continued…
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
…continued…
Surely there must be some proper role of government—surely either some government action must be good or else some government action must be necessary—or so I thought and quickly rejected his position. We engaged in a very long discussion on the subject, lasting several months at hours each day, in which he very patiently and passionately spent his time rebutting each and every one of my arguments and views in support of government action.
At this point I do not know if any of what I have written has been useful to you, Null Void, or anyone else. Somehow I doubt it, and for that I apologize.
Now I could provide a description of some of the specifics of my long debate with my libertarian friend, however, when the discussion finally stopped I still was not convinced. I was not convinced that all governments were necessarily bad. I think the thought of anarchy must have still seemed too scary.
Later I read a version of Stefan Molyneux’s book “Practical Anarchy,” along with a few other short works on the subject. I was getting closer to libertarian anarchism, but was still very uncertain. I offered my criticisms of Molyneux’s work to my libertarian friend and he responded trying to persuade me that my economic fears of what life would be like without a state were unwarranted and that my vain attempts at arguing that the state’s aggressions were moral were just that: vain.
I was still unconvinced. However, after a month or two in which I stopped thinking about the subject, I went back and read much of the long discussion with I had had with my friend. As I read what I had written several months earlier I realized how wrong many of my arguments were and how unwarranted many of my fears of a stateless society were. In short, even though at the time I was still not ready to accept that I had no good reason to support any government, my realization that my reasons for supporting some government from months earlier were nonsensical helped me realize that perhaps the notion of a stateless society was not too absurd or awful after all.
Within a few more months of discussion and reading, just under a year after Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address, in January of 2011, I finally admitted to myself that I was a libertarian anarchist.
I no longer believed that governments were justified, nor necessary for achieving peaceful, prosperous, orderly societies. I no longer thought that government “solutions” to social problems were helpful or better than non-governmental libertarian solutions.
As time went on my confidence in my libertarian anarchism grew. I learned more economics and gained a better understanding of how a stateless society might look and function. I grasped the arguments against the state’s legitimacy better as I argued for libertarian anarchism with others in online discussion forums. While I did not have much success at persuading the random passionate statists that I debated with, the experiences nevertheless made me more familiar with the reasons why people support states and the reasons why their reasons are fallacious.
I searched the internet for a plethora of resources on market anarchism, finding many articles and essays on the internet. Many I found on Mises.org. I read some LewRockwell.com for a period, but did not like the conservative/minarchist flavor of many of the writings there and so I have not visited the site recently. While for a short time I watched many of Molyneux’s countless YouTube videos, I quickly found that I disagreed with him on several issues and was not too fond of… well let’s just say that I discovered other anarchist YouTubers and learned and discussed from and with them, forgetting about Molyneux. My YouTube channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/PeaceRequiresAnarchy
I made my YouTube channel the same time I started my blog, about a year after becoming a libertarian anarchist, in the beginning of February 2012.
Perhaps you may be interested in my blog post on Gustave de Molinari’s essay “The Production of Security”: http://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/06…
It is very related to the question of “What is an anarchist?” which I think is something we need to answer eventually.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
Sorry for the long posts, Null Void. I did not have time to write them, but I did anyway for some reason. I will make sure to not write anything as long anymore.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
No need to apologize my friend.
You clearly have put a lot of thought into your position; you have come a long way.
From a young age, I never took anything for granted. "Just because." was rarely good enough for me. I spent more time reading books on various subjects than interacting with my peers. The worlds of knowledge and art had a stronger pull than the 'social world'. Nevertheless, there was one genre of fiction that fascinated me: dystopian fiction. In each of these worlds, powerful people operated unchecked and unopposed. Operating through the state, the means they used to ensure their dominance terrified. While 1984 has certainly been bourne out, Huxley's "Brave New World" scares me most. Why?
Because it came to pass long ago.
He depicted a world where getting along was more important than getting things right. Where being happy was more important than being human. Where individuality is worse than a crime: it is a sin. ("When the individual feels, the community reels.") Where dissent is treated as a sign of 'maladjustment' or 'anti-social'. Where people are consciously made into something to be used. A place where feeling unhappy is not considered 'normal'. Numb.
Notice that in Huxley's world, there was little difference between the economy and the state. This will be part of our discussion in the future.
Equally terrifying was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 45-sadly also prophetic. This is the book that made me something of a cultural snob; I expect art, not entertainment. Both books made me intolerant of mindlessness; even when I was a democratic socialist of some sort in youth, I was a cultural Tory. Still am, to some degree. In games, I rarely play anything rated below 8/10. If 1-5, 4.5 or not at all. I expect an author to challenge me. I prefer the seinen genre in anime. Music must make me feel. Movies must take me away to another world. A painting must captivate. A sculpture must awe.
It is mindlessness & the irrational that is the friend of authority & hierarchy. So is the drive to "just be happy" (about what), to "get along" (Get along with what? Fit in with what?). Peace of mind is overrated.
Again, do not apologize. I used to be able to write so naturally. Maybe one day, I will do it again.
"My knowledge of politics was essentially limited to the view that Democrats are caring, charitable people who like to help the poor, while Republicans are selfish people who like the military. I was leaning towards being a Democrat, although not with much conviction since I knew that there was probably some more to politics than this….
…I realized that I knew very little about politics and had never taken any time to put any thought into determining my own politics views."
"Surely there must be some proper role of government—surely either some government action must be good or else some government action must be necessary…"
Indeed, this is an example of what I mean by 'mindlessness'. The ideas are mindless. Blithely assumed to be true, no grand debate needed. Just pragmatic debate over means and ends.
It treats social arrangements as being as natural as gravity. Abstractions.
You don't have to be an anarchist to see that the State is not an inherently benevolent institution. Or that it requires explanation and justification. That it is always up for debate. Where did it come from? Who does it benefit?
A brief look at history shows that the state as an insitution has to be watched, chained, and shackled. That leaders must live in terror of those who govern them. That the 'social contract' is something imposed on the State later, not arising from it. That it has stood with the status quo, with the wealthy. That there is an INHERENT conflict of interest where there is an inequality of power. That the wealthy depend on the State.
Really, there is no moral argument for hierarchy (of which the State is paramount); only expedience. And that is very weak.
At any rate, to business. 'What is anarchism'? That is an excellent question; and, since it is not widely understood, it is not immediately obvious. It is closely intertwined with the question of "What is capitalism?"
And relax; I'm more nervous than you are!
Thank you very much, nullvoid9. Coming from a libertarian socialist perspective, I share your opinion that self-described anarcho-capitalists are not calling for anarchism as it is has been understood throughout much of history. However, I also advocate strong strategic relationships between anarchists/libertarian socialists and classical liberals. I will also concede that dismantling the state would, in some ways, gradually level the playing field economically. I guess you might say that I think "an"-caps are about 50-60% right.
Despite having not read many books, Huxley's "Brave New World," Orwell's "1984", and Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" all happen to be on the short list of books that I have read. They're all classics, so I guess it's not that surprising.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
“Really, there is no moral argument for hierarchy (of which the State is paramount); only expedience. And that is very weak.”
Let’s get started with some details of our views. What do you mean by “hierarchy” here? Do you mean coercive hierarchical relationships in which some people have aggressive power over others? If so, I would agree with you.
However, if you also mean “voluntary hierachies,” then I would disagree. I do think that voluntary hierarchies are perfectly acceptable morally.
So what do I mean by a “voluntary hierarchy”? I mean when you have a leader and people who voluntarily choose to follow that leader for whatever reason. Perhaps the leader is intelligent and wise and the other people know that if they choose to listen to him and follow him then they will be better off.
The following episode of the children’s television show “The Smurfs” (
) beautifully illustrates the difference between leaders and rulers—between voluntary hierarchical relationships and coercive hierarchical relationships. I urge you to watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaRIdKxNFDg
Papa smurf is the voluntary leader. The other smurfs listen to him and do as he suggests because they know that they will all be better off if they listen to his wisdom. He is not a king or a President, but instead is a voluntary of the leader. When the smurfs aren’t “acting like humans” (i.e. fighting and threatening each other; see video) their society can be described as voluntary and anarchical. I would also say that it could be described as a hierarchical society in a sense because of the relationship between Papa Smurf and the other smurfs.
I believe that the voluntary consensual kind of hierarchical relationship in which people voluntarily choose to follow leaders are moral and just, while the involuntary coercive kind of hierarchical relationship in which people involuntarily obey orders from a ruler are immoral and unjust.
Government/State hierarchices are always the coercive hierarchices, hence why I think all governments are unjust and hence why I’m an anarchist.
So are you opposed to voluntary hierarchies? Are you opposed to the voluntary relationship between the leader Papa Smurf and the other smurf followers?
What if we introduced a more detailed exchange to the situation? What if Papa smurf paid the smurfs to perform work for him, rather than just help direct them to build the presumably community-owned dam protecting their town? If he was their “employer,” or “boss” (do you distinguish between the two terms? I don’t), in that the smurfs said “I’ll work for you if you pay me X” and Papa Smurf said, “I’ll pay you X if you work for me”, would you all of a sudden consider their relationship to be unjust or immoral? I wouldn’t.
I would say that their free market voluntary society would be approaching capitalistic patterns of ownership, but I would look at the fact that the relationships are still voluntary as my argument for why they are still just and moral and anarchical.
Do you disagree? Or do you think that the conditions that would need to be met for their relationships to be “capitalistic” relationships are different than the conditions I have described? Is the mere introduction of money enough?
Or is it who owns what? In the episode it seems as though they somehow all own the dam that they are building. But let’s say that instead all of the smurfs lived in the town and were afraid that some future rain storms would cause the river to flood and destroy their town. Either they could all just agree to work together to build the dam as they did in the episode, or they could take a more capitalistic approach:
One smurf, a capitalist, could homestead or buy a plot of land on the river to build the dam. This capitalist smurf could go to each other smurf in the town and say, “Will you pay me X if I can guarantee that your home won’t be flooded?” Many of the smurfs say yes and so the capitalist smurf gets the funding for the project. He then hires out many of the smurfs in the village by offering to pay them X if they work on the dam for him. They work on the dam and he pays them. The dam gets built and perhaps the capitalist employer boss smurf earns a profit. Is there anything objectionable about this scenario to you? I would consider it perfectly moral and just because it is voluntary. But I would also consider it capitalistic.
Do you (a) agree with me or (b) believe that the scenario is not capitalistic or (c) believe that the scenario involves injustices and if so what are they and why are the unjust in your view?
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
I'd put it at 30-40%, but even then not as pissed off.
I'm fairly new to libertarianism. I was raised in a Conservative family and just took it for granted that Bush's wars were just and for our security. When Barrack Obama won in 2008, I began reassessing my political views. I knew Obama was slightly to the Left of most Americans, so, I blamed his victory on Bush. But, I didn't know that much about Bush because my "news" during his administration came from right-wing propaganda. A little bit of reading and YouTubing convinced me that his wars were unjust and unnecessary. It was this conviction that led me to libertarianism.
I believe libertarians and anarchists can work together to wake people up to the statism in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. But, I can't fully accept Anarchism for the simple reason that I don't think we will ever see a stateless society in our lifetime. I do understand where Anarchists are coming from and believe the society they envision would be preferable to the one we classical liberals would like to restore. I just believe if we ever get to anarchy it will be through baby steps, which is why I advocate political action.
My recent post Government Employment: The “Temporary” Boost
I am going by 'An Anarchist FAQ', which can be found here. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
It is a very informative FAQ. Not perfect by any means; but, it helps explain the broad contours of anarchist thought, from individualist to communist.
I would argue that capitalism is the enemy of classical liberals as well. It is not a market made free, but a market rigged towards those who already own capital. The political and economic component cannot be separated (note, 'political' does not always mean 'the State').
But, beyond economics, is how it monopolizes everything else. There is no reason for every relationship to be dictated by the laws of the market. In fact, the reification of 'the market' dates only to the cold war I think. Really, liberalism is more than economics. The free market is part of its vision, but that is not all classical liberalism is.
This aspect needs to be recovered.
Gustave de Molinari was not an anarchist, but a radical liberal. Radical liberals are very anti-state. Some going as far as advocating statelessness. While influencing Tucker and the individualist anarchists, there is more to being an anarchist than anti-statism. Essential, not enough.
Just like support for the free market is essential, but not enough for liberalism. It is a support for freedom generally.
There is no shame in being a liberal, radical or not. I would argue it is still a left-wing idea…
Ack, I meant, of those they govern.
To be fair, it is hard to quantify these things.
(Note to NV: Just after writing this comment I wrote another comment in reply to AustrianLib above that you may want to read before responding to this…. It adds information about what I mean by "anarchist"–a person who believes that all states are unjustified.)
"Gustave de Molinari was not an anarchist, but a radical liberal. Radical liberals are very anti-state. Some going as far as advocating statelessness. While influencing Tucker and the individualist anarchists, there is more to being an anarchist than anti-statism. Essential, not enough."
What is your definition of anarchism? How can you say that an advocate of statelessness (i.e. anarchy? Or do you make a distinction between "governments" and "states"?) is not an anarchist? Isn't that exactly what anarchy means–"no government"?
Someone commented on Reddit (see the link at the top of this page): "[T]here is a difference between arguments about what definitions should be used, and discussions clarifying what is really meant by the words used. The former is a waste of time, and the latter is illuminating. A discussion about what capitalism really is is absolutely pointless. Everyone already knows the many different definitions used by different people."
I agree with this and we should keep this in mind. If you don't include advocates of statelessness (e.g. 1849 Molinari (when he wrote "The Production of Security")) as "anarchists" then so be it,** but I'll need you to provide a more detailed description of what you mean by "anarchy"/"anarchist" in order for me to understand what you are saying as we proceed with this discussion.
** Although at the same time I think we should stick within some reasonable degree of widely-accepted definitions, because after all, our goal is not just to better understand the differences in our particular views, but also the differences in the popular views of the groups of self-identified anarchists–"anarcho-capitalists" and "free market anti-capitalist anarchists". If you use definitions of anarchism and capitalism that are not shared by many "C4SS anarchists" or other left libertarian anarchists and anti-capitalist anarchists, then I don't believe our discussion will accomplish this goal. I'll cite Roderick Long as someone who considers Gustave de Molinari a market anarchist: http://praxeology.net/unblog02-06.htm#07 . If you know of other C4SS anarchists, etc, who disagree with Long, I would appreciate it if you pointed them out to show that you are not the only anti-capitalist anarchist to define anarchism in such a way as to not include 1849 Molinari under the label.
As of this point I still have no idea how you define "anarchism" or "capitalism" except that you define them in such a way that you believe makes them incompatible with each other.
"It is a very informative FAQ. Not perfect by any means; but, it helps explain the broad contours of anarchist thought, from individualist to communist."
I would like to clarify the reason why I am an anarchist: I am an anarchist *because* I am a libertarian. In other words, I do not have any anarchist principles, but rather have libertarian principles that necessarily require that I be an anarchist as well.
To quote "right" libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella on this: "Because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist.” ( http://mises.org/daily/3660/ ). For his elaboration of this argument see his brief article "What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist": http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.ht…
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
I don't wish to veer off topic or derail the discussion between Null Void and I, so this will be my only comment in reply to AustrianLib on the subject he raised in the above comment.
"But, I can't fully accept Anarchism for the simple reason that I don't think we will ever see a stateless society in our lifetime." –AustrianLib
Stephan Kinsella doesn't think we will ever see a stateless society in our lifetime OR EVER for that matter, but that is not a reason to not be an anarchist. See his article What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist:
"To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified….
"Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved — I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified." –Stephan Kinsella, http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.ht…
If Null Void wants to reply to this, it may be best to reply in a new comment at the bottom rather than click reply to this comment so that our posts appear in chronological order as you scroll down the page.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
Peace,
Maybe we should shift the topic to something different. At the end of the day, the mutual exchange will be between two different views. Let's leave discussions about what capitalism & anarchism mean for now.
A more productive discussion might center around what being "left-wing" means. Let's hear that.
I see it as a broad tendency, comprising a number of philosophies. Each of these philosophies differ greatly, even within themselves, but are united by a shared parentage: the Enlightenment, its values, and vision for the future. Among Enlightenment figures, one will find precursors to liberalism, socialism, even anarchism. Sometimes in the same person!
The Enlightenment figures looked forward to a future defined by freedom, peace, abundance, equality, reason, & science. The disagreement centers on what these things consist in and how to get there. But all agree on the desirability of such a future. They differ from the right in that they agree that such a future is achievable.
Your thoughts?
So there are people who desire a "future defined by freedom, peace, abundance, equality, reason, & science." You split these people into two categories: "right-wing" and "left-wing". You define the "left-wing" people as the people who believe that such a future is achievable and presumably define the "right-wing" people as the people who don't think that it is achievable.
My thoughts are that this doesn't sound remotely interesting or worth discussing. I'm fine with you labeling different groups of people with shared thoughts in this manner, however I have no desire to join you with the labeling. What would be the point?
For example, we distinguish between people who commit "murder" and people who "kill" in self-defense. The difference is that the former act of killing is immoral while the latter is justified. Because this difference is very important (morality and justice is important after all) we see it worth our while to talk about these killers as two groups of people defined in this way.
With your "right-wing" vs "left-wing" distinction, however, your defining difference between the two groups is a meaningless difference. You said that "[The left] differ from the right in that they agree that such a future is achievable." Okay, great. Who cares? Why is it important whether someone believes that such a future is achievable or not, especially in a political discussion? Shouldn't we be discussing questions of morality and justice rather than unimportant predictions about the future?
Note that you are defining "left-wing" quite differently than I have seen it defined elsewhere. Thus my above objection is not necessarily an objection to a discussion of what it means to be "left-wing" as defined by others, but is only an objection to discussing the term as you defined it above.
Also you said, "The disagreement [between "left" and "right" centers on... how to get there [to the future of good stuff]."
In the statist left-right spectrum people make this point. They say that both left statists and right statists want the poor to be well off, for example, but people on the right typically support private charity, getting rid of minimum wage laws, etc, as the "how to get there" while people on the left support the welfare state, etc, as "how to get there."
I do not see how this statist left-right distinction can be applied to libertarians. To me it doesn't seem that it can. Libertarians are opposed to aggression. If there are multiple ways to support the poor without using aggression then great–I'm fine with all of them so we don't need to spend time examining the details of a distinction of two groups of people with two different approaches to helping the poor. Such a distinction isn't important to a political discussion. It would be like discussing a distinction between people who like to wear red hats and people who like to wear blue hats and then asking questions like, "Yeah, but what about this purple-ish hat?" Who cares? It's not relevant to morality or justice what the red-hat people think of the purple hat or what the blue-hat people think of the purple hat. The purple hat is not unjust for either the blue or the red people.
Similarly, it is not unjust to think that a future of good stuff is achievable nor is it unjust to think that such a future is not achievable. It is not unjust to support any just route of "how to get there".
So again, I don't see any good reason to want to discuss the term "left wing". If you disagree, I would like you to explain why the left wing peoples' views are just/moral while the non-left wing (right?) views are unjust/immoral. And so as to make sure that we are not discussing straw men, you may want to cite an anarcho-capitalist or other libertarian anarchist who holds one of the non-left wing views.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
I still think we should discuss: What is capitalism and is it compatible with anarchism? I have already offered some description of what I mean by "anarchism" and what I mean by "capitalism" and why I think they are compatible and would be happy to elaborate for you on any points that you are unclear about.
Also, I am unsure why you seem to think that a discussion of what you mean by "anarchist" is unproductive. I asked several questions trying to clarify this and any short answer by you could have quickly and productively resolved my confusion about your views.
For example you said: "there is more to being an anarchist than anti-statism. Essential, not enough."
I replied: "What is your definition of anarchism? How can you say that an advocate of statelessness (i.e. anarchy? Or do you make a distinction between "governments" and "states"?) is not an anarchist? Isn't that exactly what anarchy means–"no government"?"
Are the questions difficult to answer for some reason? I thought they would be easy. If there's something making them difficult to answer perhaps you could explain what it is and perhaps I can help–or at least understand why you think the discussion has to be unproductive. Because right now it seems to me like it has a high potential for being productive and that you just randomly decided that it would be unproductive for a reason that I cannot see.
Peace.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
Understood by whom?
Tucker was an Anarchistic Socialist, but he understood "Anarchism" explicitly in terms that would include capitalistic anarchists.
When it came to definitions, Berkman and Goldman specifically and repeatedly defined "Anarchism" in terms of anti-statism. (They had another term, "free communism," that they used to describe their economic commitments.) They had some formulaic definitions that they repeatedly used as filler text both in <cite>Mother Earth</cite> and in <cite>The Blast</cite> (cf. "Anarchism" at the bottom of this page and "Free Communism" at the bottom of this one.)
Voltairine de Cleyre and Rosa Slobodinsky, in the 1890s, were willing to accept the label "capitalistic anarchist" for their own views, even if tongue in cheek and for the sake of argument, in debates with communist anarchists. Of course this is not really a fair description of their views, as the "Individualist" in the dialogue goes on to make very clear, but their attitude toward this kind of division of the field into terminological camps is telling, and refreshing: "Capitalistic Anarchism? Oh, yes, if you choose to call it so. Names are indifferent to me; I am not afraid of bugaboos. Let it be so, then, capitalistic Anarchism."
I wish contemporary anarchist scholars, with their chanted invocations of The Anarchist Tradition (whether broadly or narrowly construed), had more of that kind of attitude.
Even if it were true that the Tradition had a well-defined and uniform set of views on these issues, I think that would have absolutely no normative value at all, because Anarchism is a living ideal in thought and action, which is perfectly capable of new developments, radical turnarounds, new innovations, and new errors that have nothing at all to do with "anarchism as it has been understood throughout much of history." And thank goodness.
But in any case if we are going to talk about an our predecessors in an anarchist tradition, or about the historical meaning of the term, I think it's important to exercise at least some minimal sensitivity to how messy and internally divided that tradition always already was, and how far they may have differed with us, and differed among themselves, in what they saw as most important, most essential, or necessary, and who they would or would not recognize as fellow anarchists. This ground has always been contested, and to a great extent if we hope ever to understand what past writers have had to say about it, we need a healthy dose of de Cleyre's and Slobodinsky's good-humored flexibility in recognizing the ambiguity and contestation, and taking terms provisionally or for the sake of argument or communication, rather than trying to plant a black flag on them. But instead most of the contemporary writing on this subject has tended to project the writers' own priorities, and their own ideas about what's essential, onto their predecessors, and has had a lot more to do with trying to defend turf. (N.B.: Tucker's as guilty of that as anyone, in his attempts to "defend" Proudhon, Warren, et al. from the claims of the Communists.) This kind of anarchist classicism, like most forms of classicism, lectures monotonously about the wisdom of the ancients, quite as if nobody in the past ever argued amongst themselves about what "anarchism" meant, and as if it were some kind of intellectual property that the capitalists or the communists or whoever were trying to pirate away from its "traditional" owners.
This has tended to obscure a hell of a lot more about Anarchism, and about the debates of the past, than it has clarified.
My recent post Shameless Self-promotion Sunday
Re: "anarchists/libertarian socialists" and "classical liberals" or "radical liberals." Figures like Molinari, Auberon Herbert and Herbert Spencer were not, as AFAQ claims, treated as radicalized "right-wing liberals" instead of anarchists by Tucker, or Dyer Lum, or de Cleyre, or by Goldman, or by Berkman. This is an invention of contemporary anarchist sectarianism, and is a distinction intended to push an argument that first-wave anarchists were more or less wholly unconcerned with. Molinari and Herbert are explicitly called Anarchist writers in the pages of Liberty; Spencer's earlier work, e.g. the chapter on "The Right to Ignore the State" in Social Statics, is explicitly described as Anarchist, and when he is later taken out of the ranks of the Anarchists (e.g. in Voluntary Co-Operation), it is because of his acceptance of state principles. Spencer's earlier, anarchistic work was recognized as a massive influence, and not only on or by Tucker (see Dyer Lum's <cite>Economics of Anarchy</cite>, or Bailie's <cite>Problems of Anarchism</cite>, or for that matter at copies of <cite>The Blast</cite>, where he is repeatedly quoted.) In "The Child and Its Enemies," Goldman, in a funny passage about the efforts of radical parents to mold their red-diaper babies into images of themselves, puts Spencer in the company of Bakunin and Moses Harman: "… the Anarchistic mother can make it known that her daughter's name is Louise Michel, Sophia Perovskaya … and that she will point out the faces of Spencer, Bakunin, or Moses Harman almost anywhere;" in Living My Life she lists Spencer alongside Tolstoy, Kropotkin and Edward Carpenter as men who would be excluded from entering the U.S. under the Anarchist Exclusion Act).
Again, of course, these folks may have been wrong about that. Perhaps they shouldn't have been counted as "Anarchists." Personally, I'm inclined to doubt that it matters very much whether you call them that or not, provided that you are clear on their views. But reading them out of The Anarchist Tradition has very little to do with what the people indisputably involved in making that tradition thought about them. Which may of course not be binding at all; but it ought to be acknowledged if we're going to wave our hands in the direction of how "anarchism as it has been understood throughout much of history."
My recent post The Red & Black is surviving. Help them flourish.
Okay, back into it.
To start with, 'anarchy' does not simply mean "without government". It means "without authority" "without rulers", etc. Governments and states are only one kind of ruler.
I'm learning too, having to read An Anarchist FAQ. I rescind my previous statement that I have come to believe it was unproductive. Thanks for putting it back on track.
Also…*notices the Center's statement on Gustave de Molinari* well, maybe I am…too hasty.
Well we have different definitions of anarchy then, but that is fine so long as we each understand what each of us means.
When you say that anarchy means "without authority" do you mean "without differences in amount of authority"? To cite Roderick Long again, he argues that a Lockean "equality of authority" is the ideal foundation of a free society in his essay "Equality: The Unknown Ideal" ( https://mises.org/daily/804 ). Note that this is a pretty minor quibble, so we could probably just pass over it and continue with the rest of the discussion if you want. In other words, you don't need to take the time to read Long's essay (although it is a great essay that I recommend to you if you are interested and have ample time).
So anyway, what have we learned so far? I think we've learned that each of us define both "anarchism" and "capitalism" differently. Thus the question "Is capitalism compatible with anarchism" may not be too important. Surely the answer is that it depends on which definitions of the terms you use. But since we don't really care about what terminology we use so much as what our views are, I think we should instead focus on determining the difference between (my and perhaps others) anarcho-capitalist views and (your and perhaps others) anti-capitalist market anarchist views.
One possible difference may be related to the concept of "authority". Perhaps you believe that there are unjust inequalities of authority in an anarcho-capitalist society? If so, I think this would be a good point for you to elaborate on. Perhaps you could give some examples of such inequalities of authority in an anarcho-capitalist society.
If there are other reasons for why you believe an anarcho-capitalist society to be unjust then you may want to mention those as well. I am still not sure of your reasons for being opposed to anarcho-capitalism.
Lastly note that just because I do not include "without [inequalities of] authority" in my definition of "anarchy" does not mean that I am an anarchist that is morally okay will all (or even some) inequalities of authority. It just means that that's not how I define the word "anarchy." In other words, if my definition of "anarchism" means that persons A, B, and C are "anarchists" and your definition of "anarchism" means that only persons A and B are "anarchists" then that does not necessarily mean that my views are the same as type C.
My recent post If You Were King
I think this is a good idea. Maybe our essays should be statements of our views, how we define terms, so that readers can see where we are coming from.
And Long's essay is a classic.
I'm going to be reading all your responses again, then do one big reply giving my thoughts on them.
Make no mistake, I do care about definitions and stuff. That is what this discussion is about. However, I found myself unable to answer you Peace for one reason: I am confronted with my own ignorance of the position I am trying to articulate.
You know what you are about, I find I know very little.
I have much to learn and read before I can even hope to speak intelligently.
I need to develop a blogroll of active, relevant blogs.
I need to read the Anarchist FAQ in full. I fear my earlier complaints about the use of words like "a truly free market" and the like by David S. D'Amato was misplaced.
Then there is the fact that words are defined differently by different people, and I need to keep ALL the definitions straight.
Remember, I come from an Objectivist background. Thus, I have to overthink things to understand things…
Then there is the fact that, after the 2008 crash, I dropped out of anything libertarian related. Back then, I was drifting toward what was the libertarian "center" (Reason, Cato). Only to find them drifting Right into the TP.
Anyway, thanks for being patient with me.
Hello Peace and Null, James has been kind enough to give me an invite to post on this discussion and it looks like the conversation between you two is dying down…so I think I'm gonna try to heat it back up!
First thing is first, just so we're clear I shall argue that capitalism2 and capitalism3 (using capitalism's definitions from Chartier's "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace "Anti-Capitalism"' (which you can find here on C4SS and elsewhere) are NOT compatible with anarchism. Capitalism1 is (using Roderick's logic from his speech, "Left and Right: Prospects for Liberty: 40 Years Later is an * inconstant* position that is (as Rand would call it) an "anti-concept" and a "packaged deal" that in all reality means nothing. Look up: Zaxlebax on Youtube.
IOW: *At best* my position for an-caps is that they simply are using meaningless language and *at worst* capitalism is just something I'm flat out against and thus (to one degree or another) am against anarcho-capitalism.
But first off a bit of a background about me:
So it ALL started with Rage Against The Machine (and unlike Rand I think this is a cool position to start from ;]) and realizing that the government was pretty fucked up and a lot was wrong with the policies of the Bush administration (so this was like '08 I believe) and so I figured, "Hey! If the republicans are so clearly for the rich then the democrats are for the poor right?" Wrong. But it took me a bit to figure that out.
When I started getting a bit more political my girlfriend at the time showed me "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" and it told me I was a "libertarian". I wasn't sure what to make of it (though I looked at the descriptions online and they *seemed* to fit me…especially socially wise) and I soon forgot it. But in May of '08 I took it again and it told me the same thing. This time I was intrigued and I found myself going into the Myspace Libertarian Group and by September of that same year (after pretty much constant activity on different groups [though mostly libt. groups] I was already "thinking about" anarchism and soon took the dive…
From there I was an an-cap till December-January when I became a Voluntaryist and an LL and wrote "Voluntaryist Monthly" for a few months (you can still find copies of it online on my Myspace and Facebook) but I soon developed my LLism more and more. '09 and '10 were mostly dedicated to me further figuring out anarchism and if it really *was* right for me. Connecting more with the anarchist community and traditions and reading up on various ideas, thinkers and reading from a wide-range of thinkers and so on. And then in late of '10…
I read Voltairine de Cleyre.
And this solidified so much of what I feel now.
After that I pretty much (and I still do now) regard VDC as my *favorite* anarchist and she basically convinced me of anarchism without adjectives. Since then I've been trying to refine my AWA attitudes off and on in conunction with a lot of my LL beliefs. If I *had* to "adjectivize" myself I'd say I share the most sympathies towards the individualist anarchist's philosophies of the late 19th and early 20th century of Tucker, Spooner and others while I like a lot of the *practical* applications of the mutualism philosophy (both the Carsonite and Proudhounian/Neo-Proudhounian versions).
So that's a *bit* about me…
On to business in my next post…
My recent post Further Research Material for Studying: CounterCulture
I am astonished that, in this whole discussion on anarchism and capitalism, nobody has mentioned Murray Rothbard once. I think it is undeniable that he should be considered an anarchist. Nobody even a tiny bit familiar with his works on statelessness can refute his intense passion for a society without the oppressive hierarchy of institutionalized violence called the state.
But at the same time we cannot deny he was a "capitalist" in the sense that he understood voluntary relations between employer and employee was in fact NOT slavery but a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship. The "hierarchy" inherent in capitalist firms or corporate structures are not aggressive, violent, unjust, or immoral – they are simple extended chains of voluntary relationships between consumers, shareholders, executives, management, and owners. His work on economics (Man, Economy, and State for the best example) shows the mutually beneficial, interlocking, and harmonious relationships that are formed by peace and free markets – and (for you LLs) if they happen to take the form of a boss paying wages or a shareholder earning dividends, that's perfectly fine. He combined the anarchist movements of the 19th century with the precise functioning of a market economy via Austrian economics to come to what is now referred to as anarcho-capitalism: A stateless society where individuals own private property and may enter any peaceful relationships or associations they wish.
The anarcho-capitalist sees nothing immoral about syndicalist, communalistic, or cooperative anarchist movements – precisely because they are voluntary and peaceful. Do you agree to vice verse? Do the anarcho-collectivists and left-libertarians consider a private property society (an anarcho-capitalist society) a just society? Why not?
Murray who?
Due to my having a handicapped keyboard (in that I'm missing a few keys, etc.) and that I'm going to get a new keyboard tomorrow I think I'll hold off on posting my follow-up comment 'till then.
But I *at least* wanted to introduce myself to this conversation and hopefully I'll be able to post a long, multi-pronged post (or posts) that is aimed at multiple people in this thread in order to clarify some things I think are important.
For now though, a lot of what I stand for and believe can be found in the book "Markets Not Capitalism" ( (which you can find online for free in PDF form and buy a physical copy too for around $32!) both in general and more specifically in one of the essays in it by Charles Johnson's which is called "Markets Freed From Capitalism".
So I recommend reading both to see what you might expect from me in the comings posts!
My recent post Further Research Material for Studying: CounterCulture
A few notes, as I'm struggling to take everything in.
Markets are not the same thing as capitalism.
Second, because actual anarchists are not merely opposed to the State. If there is a hierarchy, voluntary or not, it is opposed. Doesn't mean I think force is the right answer in every case.
I don't quite buy the story your telling. The relation between employer and employee is in fact slavery-even by the rubrics of free market economics. Freedom is more than the freedom to choose masters.
On a friendlier note, I am glad you don't see collectivism, communalism, cooperative, mutualism, individualist anti-captialism as bad. It means you value freedom more than any particular economic arrangement. I wish there were more like you,
I do not, however, think it is "undeniable" that he was an anarchist though.
What I have learned here is my own lack of knowledge. I thought I would be able to articulate my views easily, that I knew a lot…turns out, I am surrounded (not a bad thing!) by people who know far more than me about a lot of things.
Running into something without knowing anything about it.
That's me.
But, I am learning. I appreciate all this. If nothing else, It is encouraging me to learn more. Even if my responses are poor.
Why are you opposed to voluntary hierarchy? Why would you condemn the laborer who voluntarily chooses to work for an employer, given he believes it is the best option available to him? Why condemn the subsistence farmer who decides to move to the city for a better chance at life?
"I don't quite buy the story your telling. The relation between employer and employee is in fact slavery-even by the rubrics of free market economics. Freedom is more than the freedom to choose masters. "
I don't even follow this. How is honest employment slavery? How are two men coming together to trade labor hours for money (or food, shelter, whatever arrangement) any different from any other voluntary exchange we make? And what "rubrics" of "free market economics" are you talking about? An employer isn't a master because you always have the option to choose another master or to choose no master at all (and be self-employed). Employees sign contracts stipulating they will work for X number of hours under certain conditions, etc. etc. and the employers agree to pay them a price for their work. How in any sense of the word is this "slavery," especially without the state?!
An anarchist, as I understand it, is one who advocates anarchy – a social condition without rulers. Rothbard did not advocate for a ruling class or for any rulers at all. He advocates a private property society where people form their own voluntary associations. That's anarchism!
I agree with what Mattheus von G wrote here.
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
I look forward to Nick's contributions. Note that my position is that capitalism3 *is* compatible with anarchism. I agree that capitalism2 is not compatible with anarchism.
I have a lot to say on this subject, specifically in response to Gary Chartier's arguments in his post "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace "Anti-Capitalism"" ( http://c4ss.org/content/1738 ), but I am going to wait a few days (probably until this weekend) before saying what I have to say (both because I have other things that I have to attend to and so that Nick can try to clarify some things that he thinks are important).
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
No, that alone is not anarchism.
And I think going into the history of how wage labor arose would make sense.
However, if self-employment; coops; collectives; and communes become more numerous, then I might agree with you. Again, I have more to learn.
And I will argue that it is not. This, of course, is a mutual exchange as I must remember.
It's not about trying to prove each other wrong, but in explaining our positions.
It's all coming together in my mind.
"Why are you opposed to voluntary hierarchy? Why would you condemn the laborer who voluntarily chooses to work for an employer, given he believes it is the best option available to him?"
The quick answer is that "voluntary" is necessary, but not sufficient for mutuality, equity, liberty, etc. Our love of all things voluntary, does not trump our disdain for all things hierarchy. "We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
I am curious how long your deferential sense of respecting other people's choices would continue, if everyone around you were volunteering for "taxes" and encouraging others to sign up for "taxes".
I understand that the technical heterodox libertarian sense of taxes is wealth ultimately procured at gun point, but let us considered the institutional sense of a tax as procured wealth that can be used against your individual best interest for the supposed better interests of a community. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathian_anarchism & (PDF!) http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_4.pd…
We must always remember that we are watching "voluntary" choices being made in a contaminated context. A choice between two options – work or starve – is a choice that we should never be satisfied with and it should give us great pause to consider whether or not we are -still?- in a "free culture". Now if it was the choice between 10 options, a 1,000 options, then our visceral sense that something has gone horribly wrong would be less founded.
Check out: http://aaeblog.com/2006/11/25/proletarian-blues/ & http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/06/why-…
Why do you think we would condemn the laborer in this scenario? It seems weird to me to look at a power relationship and scorn the one party in said relationship with the least power.
My recent post c4ss:
Anarchist Economics
The Center for a Stateless Society,…
Reading Charles Johnson's contributions (just read them!), puts me a little more at ease.
I need to relax a little more.
They were not all wise people; they were complex human beings, who disagreed amongst themselves, got things wrong, etc. Also, when Rothbard and company were alive, based on my own uninformed speculations and readings, it seemed as if old anarchists from the 1930's and the like were willing to be charitable to Rothbard and co.
I think a common thread among today's anarchists, if Johnson is right, is talking like an anarchist but thinking like a Marxist. It might have started with Bookchin, who was a Marxist before becoming an anarchist. There also seems to be a sort of self-consciousness-like they're trying to impress non-anarchistic socialists. And each other. This leads to the sort of stupid sectarianism we see today. Rothbard seems guilty of it as well; his entire political strategy tears pages from Lenin.
I came into this discussion with a burning sense of purpose; instead, I am humbled.
In the end, this should be a subject where friendly, goodnatured, theoretical discussion can take place. And that ideas are not always mutually exclusive.
The main thing I'd like to see happen is for individualist anarchists to extend an olive branch to social anarchists. I think individualists have to be the one's to do it; we all should be reading each other's books and having friendly, good natured discussions.
It is possible to be vicious to someone's ideas without being vicious to a person. For example, even in light of her review, I think Magpie Killjoy is probably a very nice and intelligent person. I don't know her, so I wouldn't know.
To the ancaps; I am not going to agree, but I will seek to be completely fair. And besides, we could still be friends; I'm sure each of you have many other interests besides politics, right?
Related to capitalism: I have been thinking about this thing called "neoliberalism". I was browsing through a library one day, when I came upon a book called "Neopolitics" Link here: http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/382_reg.htm…
In it, it described neoliberalism as being an ideology committed to promoting economic growth to the exclusion of any other goal, by hook or by crook. Growth measured by aggregates like GDP. Cited Alexander Hamilton as a chief influence.
So, there may not be as much difference between Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, Jeffery Sachs, Robert Reich, etc as it may appear. What is it that they say? Economic growth by any means!
Of course, this would involve screwing the poor in various ways.
Interesting…
But if it's voluntary then it's not authority! That's the whole point. If an employer/employee relationship is voluntary, if they both agree to the terms of the contract, if it is both of their best interests to create this arrangement – and if they can both leave at any time – then it's not authority.
You wouldn't suggest Walmart has authority over its customers, would you? Nor Ford over its customers? Publix, and Target, and BP, and any other private firm are neither slave masters nor "authority" because the relationship depends on mutual agreement. It's hardly slavery if the slave can at will decide to leave and work for himself or another without the application of violence.
That's a mistaken analogy precisely BECAUSE taxes aren't voluntary. They are enforced by the threat of violence and kidnapping. No employer threatens a worker with imprisonment, violence, assault, or murder for daring to stop coming to work. That's what we call slavery as differentiated from a free labor market where workers can come and go without the imposition of aggression.
As long as the Heathian community collected it voluntarily – ie, each person deciding upon himself whether or not to pay into the service – then that isn't taxation and it's not immoral. The only important moral criterion for anarchism is the threat or application of violence. Do the Heathian community members haul you to jail for not subscribing to their system? Then it's statism. If they don't, it's anarchism. I subscribe for anything that's peaceful.
In the first place, I've only been talking about labor contracts in a stateless society, so that's the least contaminated context I can imagine. In the second place, those two options are what we face all the time – work or starve! But you can't point to the existence (or the possibility) of starvation as an indication that we aren't in a "free society!" That's ridiculous. Starvation is a natural phenomenon of all biological life, it's not a political or social phenomenon. In every society the people will be "free" to starve, but this corrupts the language. What we mean by freedom isn't freedom away from natural biological or metaphysical constraints (freedom from gravity! freedom from fear!), but freedom against external coercion. A free society is a society where no man can impose his will on another by the use or threat of violence. In the third place, there are not simply two options available to us, but literally thousands and millions. There are an infinite number of options to move, make new connections, develop new talents, exchange with new partners, and find new work all over the world. The anarcho-capitalist society would see this extended by abolishing the state.
You're completely misunderstanding the economics of labor markets, then. In a society without monopoly privilege and corporatism, do the workers have the power or do the employers? They both do. They rely on each other. Firms neither exploit their consumers nor their workers because there is no institutional arrangement that lets them get away with it. One party may certainly be more dependent on the other, but that's an irrelevant fact. If I own property on the border of the Sahara desert, and a starving dehydrated man stumbles out of the desert onto my property, and offers to work in exchange for food and water for a day, am I exploiting him? Am I a reprehensible slave master for subjecting this man to forced labor because otherwise he'll starve? Absolutely not, because I had nothing to do with his pitiable condition. I didn't starve him or hold water from him, but he came to me looking for an improvement in his living condition.
Why is the history of how wage labor arose even relevant? I'm talking about the decisions of employees and employers now. I have no doubt that "early capitalism" aka feudalism was barbaric and violent, and I'm not trying to defend that.
I'm trying to defend the right of any worker to engage in any peaceful productive channels he desires.
Where do you disagree with Rothbard? What did he get wrong?
History does matter. Things that happened then can have effects that echo across the ages-even things that happened centuries ago.
This is quite relevant.
Please, there is only one kind of capitalism; the kind that historically exists.
I don't doubt your antistatism. Not at all.
For the record, I do think Ford and Walmart have authority over their customers (it's called advertising), and could not exist without any state intervention.
Plus, it's not personal. You of course are not responsible for his starvation.
It's inherent in the system.
Read that Emma Goldman essay. It's very, very good.
She was a very wise woman. I can speak from experience about how the spontaneous nature of a child can be crushed.
That's definitely not true. There's mercantilism, fascism, laissez-faire capitalism, "mixed economies," and all sorts of variants with various different attributes. Is today's capitalism the capitalism of Smith? Of Jefferson? Ford, Edison, Wilson? Of course not. You wouldn't possibly accept that there is "only one kind of socialism" when it's clear there can be state socialism, state communism, social democracy, stateless socialism, stateless communism, and lots of middle ground. Anarcho-capitalism is a combination of purely private property and statelessness (although that's redundant).
Advertising isn't authority, dude. You aren't compelled by the force of violence to buy certain products. Stop playing fast and loose with terms. Authority is a political relationship, not a voluntary market relationship which buying from Walmart certainly is.
WHY is it relevant? This is an ethical discussion of whether being employed by others is legitimate, not a history of wage labor.
It's inherent in the reality of biological systems. Are you serious? The "system?????"
A few days ago Nick Ford said that he would be making some comments here early this week once he got a new keyboard, so I will wait a couple days before saying more.
Null Void, you said: "Reading Charles Johnson's contributions (just read them!), puts me a little more at ease." Are you referring to his comments on the Facebook thread here?: https://www.facebook.com/nick.ford.5811/posts/126…
My recent post Gustave de Molinari’s “The Production of Security”
No, he was talking about Charles's responses that were made to Dave in IL and himself (NullVoid I mean).
On another note: I''m happy to say that my contributions to this discussion are forthcoming and should be starting sometime tonight! No promises but it *should* be sometime later tonight!
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
So…*technically* since this conversation was *supposed* to only go during August 2012 I'm too late to the party…but I'm gonna post anyways because I repeatedly said I would and want to follow up on my word.
First there's the matter of "voluntary hierarchy" vs. "coercive" hierarchy that Peace and Null bring up. Let's see what each of you had to say:
Null: “Really, there is no moral argument for hierarchy (of which the State is paramount); only expedience. And that is very weak.”
Peace: "Let’s get started with some details of our views. What do you mean by “hierarchy” here? Do you mean coercive hierarchical relationships in which some people have aggressive power over others? If so, I would agree with you."
Both of you (in my opinion) have made a mistake here.
Null, you've presumed the term "hierarchy" will be so easily agreed with and did nothing on your own terms to define it so as to make the word more concerete, at least in that post. I'm only responding to this post but I don't see it clarified in later posts either so…
But Peace, what you do here is a non-substantial response because your divide in so-called "legitimate" and "illegitimate" hierarchies is what would be called a "thin" approach to libertarianism. For more about the "thinness" in your position (and no this *isn't* akin to calling you a bad person, just an inconsistent applicator of libertarianism
) please read Charles Johnson's "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin" which you can find on his website, radgeek.com.
Anyways, the "thiness" in here is you (seemingly) treating relationships are *only* being objectionable if aggression is involved in the relation. Now while this is *certainly* an objectionable trait of *any* relation I would argue that the subordination of others under hierarchical systems (or any relation really…) can be done in *many* different ways and not *just* an aggressive manner.
For example, the wage systmem is currently (in my opinion) very much a *wage-slavery* system (see: Wage-Slavery: The Short Version, by Brad Spangler on C4SS) that is made up of (a good portion of the times) businesses that have state-privilege that allow them to restrict the free movement of workers, entrepreneurs and people who just want to live of their own accord. Now while they might not be using any sort of *direct* violence in this I think we can both agree that this sort of *systematic* usage of state-privilege is a *way* to have the workers more likely to be subordinate to the bosses and to the extent this happens the wage-system *as such* is objectionable.
Now the bosses may not actually be *trying* to do this or may not even necessarily *want* it but that's not the point. As we learn from Hayek's work in spontaneous order's, bad things need not come with intent or absolute directness. For more on how spontaneous orders can most certainly be non-libertarian refer to the mutual exchanges betweeen Roderick Long and Charles Johnson with Brewer Davis, Adam-Segal and Gordon and more specifically Charles and Roderick's posts on the subject.
But enough of that part, I want to move on to the rest of your post…
"So what do I mean by a “voluntary hierarchy”? I mean when you have a leader and people who voluntarily choose to follow that leader for whatever reason. Perhaps the leader is intelligent and wise and the other people know that if they choose to listen to him and follow him then they will be better off."
Going back again to Johnson's essay "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin" I think there's a danger he points out with thinking like this. You can see such a danger in this passage here, I am now quoting the article at length:
"Although political coercion is the most distinctive expression of political inequality, you could—in principle—have a consistent authoritarian social order without any use of force. Even in a completely free society, everyone could, in principle, still voluntarily agree to bow and scrape and speak only when spoken to in the presence of the (mutually agreed-upon) town Chief, or unthinkingly agree to obey whatever restrictions and regulations he tells them to follow over their own business or personal lives, or agree to give him as much in voluntary taxes on their income or property as he might ask. So long as the expectation of submission and the demands for wealth to be rendered were backed up only by means of verbal harangues, cultural glorifications of the wise and virtuous authorities, social ostracism of unruly dissenters, and so on, these demands would violate no-one’s individual rights to liberty or property. But while there’s nothing logically inconsistent about a libertarian envisioning—or even championing—this sort of social order, it would certainly be weird. Yes, in a free society the meek could voluntarily agree to bow and scrape, and the proud could angrily but nonviolently demand obsequious forms of address and immediate obedience to their commands. But why should they? Non-coercive authoritarianism may be consistent with libertarian principles, but it is hard to reasonably reconcile the two…"
So I think there can be *quite* the problem with hierarchies. Which is why I think that Chomsky (for all of my disagreements with him at times) is correct when he says that anarchists main job is to criticize *all* power-relations (or something along those lines) and *force them* to justify themselves.
…And before you say anything, no, I don't mean *force* in an NAP breaking sense. I just mean *ideologically* force them or in some ways compel people into a train of thinking where they must either justify their existence or eventually lose popular support if they want to become so powerful in society.
I'm not saying that's gonna fix all of our problems or whatever but I think it's definitely an excellent step in the right directionh. Don't you?
"I believe that the voluntary consensual kind of hierarchical relationship in which people voluntarily choose to follow leaders are moral and just, while the involuntary coercive kind of hierarchical relationship in which people involuntarily obey orders from a ruler are immoral and unjust."
You're using a lot of language here…but I'm unsure you're actually saying much substantial. Alot of this language is bound up in presuppositions of certain property norms and ideas that only you hold in this conversation between you and Null (obviously) so it might not be good to speak so generally like this and more or less try to get to the nitty gritty of the matter.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Anyways, it's true that Papa Smurf (side note: props for innovation 'cause I've never thought about using the Smurfs for a debate like this) is a voluntary leader and only has decision making power with the full knowledge and consent of the community while Brainy clearly didn't. But you should also realize…this is a kid's cartoon man.
As such it's obviously going to be simplifying how these things *actually* work and in the *real* world it'd probably be a *constant* process of re-negotiation for who holds decision making power and why. If a community just chose one and decided to keep that leader in there for so long I'd be concerned that they got some sort of cult following, of the norms and values of the communities or if they (the leader I mean) could turn into some sort of ruler.
Now that's *not* to say that I'm going to use *violence* against such communities or leaders just to invesitage the legitimacy of the claims. But as an anarchist if I feel there's good reasons to think that a leader might be illwegitimate (which they can be in many ways *despite* being voluntarily agreed to by a community) I'm going to protest it or discuss it with the others in the community and see how they feel. Basically what Sheldon Richman advocates: context-keeping and community organizing. Again, it'd be around peaceful and voluntary means (we can get into the specifics if you wish but I don't feel as of now it's necessary) but it'd definitely *exist* for me. And if it wasn't allowed by the leader in question well then I'd feel like Johnson's example of the chief was becoming more real as time goes on…
"Government/State hierarchices are always the coercive hierarchices, hence why I think all governments are unjust and hence why I’m an anarchist. "
I'm gonna get back to this point later…
"What if Papa smurf paid the smurfs to perform work for him, rather than just help direct them to build the presumably community-owned dam protecting their town? If he was their “employer,” or “boss” (do you distinguish between the two terms? I don’t), in that the smurfs said “I’ll work for you if you pay me X” and Papa Smurf said, “I’ll pay you X if you work for me”, would you all of a sudden consider their relationship to be unjust or immoral? I wouldn’t."
I would consider such contracts immoral the same as Tucker did. If there are no viable alternatives and Papa Smurf had worked to somehow limit their own alternatives to either form a worker-smurf collective or be their own smurf instead then I'd object to it and call it immoral.
*But* if they have the means to do other things and *still* want to do it, know what it entails and Papa Smurf has used no violence against them to compel them (either historical or present) then I'd consider it "foolish" and work in my own communities to try to dissaude people from doing such things so that they may be more likely to work on their own terms or form worker-smurf collectives.
"One smurf, a capitalist, could homestead or buy a plot of land on the river to build the dam. This capitalist smurf could go to each other smurf in the town and say, “Will you pay me X if I can guarantee that your home won’t be flooded?” Many of the smurfs say yes and so the capitalist smurf gets the funding for the project. He then hires out many of the smurfs in the village by offering to pay them X if they work on the dam for him. They work on the dam and he pays them. The dam gets built and perhaps the capitalist employer boss smurf earns a profit. Is there anything objectionable about this scenario to you? I would consider it perfectly moral and just because it is voluntary. But I would also consider it capitalistic."
Again, I think the idea that relations are moral *just* because they are merely "voluntarily" lead to a blindness (partial or more) of actually evulating relations as entirely beneficial or not. I'd argue the "voluntaryness" of a relation is a *necessary but insufficent* condition to praise something. In addition to the relation being voluntary I'd aim for relations to be mutually beneficial and made between equals (equality of authority is an important value that I feel reinforces the belief in individual liberty like Charles Johnson and Roderick Long have suggested).
I've talked about hierarchy enough though. I think it's time to move on to different posts and hopefully different topics within this conversation…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Now for a comment by Null:
"I would argue that capitalism is the enemy of classical liberals as well. It is not a market made free, but a market rigged towards those who already own capital. The political and economic component cannot be separated (note, 'political' does not always mean 'the State')."
Right on, I pretty much agree with this. Though I'd say even though it *is* the enemy of classical liberals it's not typically treated as such. Hence an-caps typically refer to themselves (or historically just *are*) radical classica liberlals. I think that's *way* to self-inhibiting and doesn't allow for much theoretical experimentation with the strains of anti-authoritarian socialism (ala Tucker and the rest of the individualists, not to mention the anarcho-socialists, etc. etc.) and as such I can't accept anarcho-capitalism simply on those terms, let alone it's own.
"But, beyond economics, is how it monopolizes everything else. There is no reason for every relationship to be dictated by the laws of the market. In fact, the reification of 'the market' dates only to the cold war I think. Really, liberalism is more than economics. The free market is part of its vision, but that is not all classical liberalism is. "
Well this is a mistake by you Null. Markets aren't necessarily capitalism. Markets are a much more general social-mechanism than capitalism. Capitalism has been (historically speaking) a virul outgrowth of feudalism (like the left typically say) but a lot of that big drive was the *state* (a part that the more mainstrain anti-authoritarian left miss sometimes sadly) heavily subsidied and extenralized such a take over of peasant's land. This is all pretty much documented in Carson's "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" and I don't think I really need to go over it again.
"Gustave de Molinari was not an anarchist, but a radical liberal."
I'm pretty certain this is true. Or if it's not it's not too *far* from the truth in any case. While de Molinari certainly advocated (ala his "Production of Security"essay of course)
"Radical liberals are very anti-state. Some going as far as advocating statelessness. While influencing Tucker and the individualist anarchists, there is more to being an anarchist than anti-statism. Essential, not enough."
Exactly. Anti-statism is an essential but not sufficent feature of anarchism I'd argue. I'll get more into the why of that soon enough though since you and I obviously agree on this point while Peace may have his differences with it (and does as we shall see in his future posts).
"Just like support for the free market is essential, but not enough for liberalism. It is a support for freedom generally."
That's a good point I had never really thought of…I mean it makes total sense…good point!
"There is no shame in being a liberal, radical or not. I would argue it is still a left-wing idea…"
Hear hear! After all both Bastiat *and* Proudhoun sat on the left together ya know…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"What is your definition of anarchism? How can you say that an advocate of statelessness (i.e. anarchy? Or do you make a distinction between "governments" and "states"?) is not an anarchist? Isn't that exactly what anarchy means–"no government"?"
Ok, here's somethingI feel that separates you and I Will: Is anti-statism sufficent to constitute an anarchism?
Now, obviously this is a pretty big question and I don't proclaim to have the definite best answer but this is what I've come up with…
No.
…Woo! Glad that's over!
…Oh, you want reasoning?
*sighs*
Ahemn…to be more serious now I'm not gonna make simple appeals to "the anarchist tradition" because (as Charles has already pointed out) that's already pretty complicated with trying to use it against *capitalistic anarchism* (which you would think would be simple enough but apparently not…) and I'm gonna try to do my best to take this challenge on as comprhensively as I can think to.
The biggest thing is the eytemology of the word. An-archy, means a lack of *rulership* right? It means *no rulers* correct? Now the government/state (I don't make a distinction there most times, so that's not part of my objection…) is just *one* form of rulership right? Or do you think there are no other types of rulership than the ones enforced by the state/government? If that's the case then I'd say we have a much *bigger* disagreement then I would hope to have with you Peace. But if that's the case let me know.
But for the purposes of keeping this post shorter than the ones I've made so far (sorry!)let's assume you accept that the state ruling is merely *one* form of rulership. Well then it'd follow that being an anarchist is not *merely* about being anti-state! That's obviously a *very* important value to have but we also oppose other sorts of rulership.
Now what do I *mean* by a ruler. Well this comes down to a mater of a discussion about authority, power, leaders vs. rulers and more. But let me try to simplify things (again, for the sake of discussion and for the sake of the length of my posts!) by saying that I define a *ruler* as pretty much a leader gone bad.
A ruler is someone who subjects people (without their consen) to their command and either systematically or directly restricts the alternatives that the person might have otherwise. Now that second part of that might not *always* happen with rulers but it *tends* to happen. Also, please excuse my definition as I typically don't like to rely on dictionary definitinos and instead about how I see the world. I guess it's just the anarchist in me.
So the question remains: What other forms of rulers would we, as anarchists, object to? What examples could I give?
Well I think cultural imbalances and power-disparties tend to cause rulers or are associate with them a lot of the time. So I take issue with things like sexism, racism, militarism and other similarily harmful cultural attitudes that can help build systems of inequality and priivlege for the few and suffering and margenlization for the many. I'm not cool with that.
So I think people who *enforce* cultural imbalances and power-disparities (say….bosses, landlords, capitalist property owners, etc.) are pretty suspect. And when I say "capitalistic" property owners I don't *just* mean Ted Turner but people who use land based on absentee ownership and not of their own use and so on. They'd have to use violence ("self defense" sure…
) to back up their claims when they're clearly not making any use of their home and thus would block out people who might need the land or values it contains.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
(Damn! So close!)
Now this (of course) opens up a whole 'nother can of worms of whether people can have hotels, people can go out for 5 minutes without the milk-man stealing their home (srsly?) and if people rent out to other people am I going to shoot them.
Well ok, in that order then:
1. People can have hotels…but it'd be more collectively/cooperatively run and probably be something more along the lines of a lodge or something.
2. Yes, obviously people can leave their houses for a day to go to work or leave their houses for a week, etc. It's gonna be up to communities to come up with standards of labor and use and dis-use so it can be best determined what to make of the situation. So communities shall differ on this. But suffice it to say..the milk-man is NOT going to take your house.
3. No, I'm not going to shoot anyone who tries to rent out, be a boss or whatever. I'm not that great with violence and wouldn't advocate anyone else to take it upon themselves either. But I'd use social and economic pressures via context-keeping and community organizing like I said before.
There…hope we're a bit clearer now.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Ok…I think my last piece in this conversation shall be to object/and or agree to Mattheus Von G. and any of the posts that came out of that "separate" thread.
Mattheus says:
"I think it is undeniable that he should be considered an anarchist. Nobody even a tiny bit familiar with his works on statelessness can refute his intense passion for a society without the oppressive hierarchy of institutionalized violence called the state."
I can certainly try if you'd like…
1. A lot of his work was very much focused on the state and when he tried to focus on any of the issues that the left did (which is something in the 60s he only briefly focused on in his "New Left" phase that he soon grew out of) he pretty much treated it with scorn ("egalitarianism as a revolt against nature", his writings on the feminist movement and hell, I've heard he couldn't even talk about weed in a correct fashion!). So his "inishtfulness" is pretty much reduced to anti-statism. Which, as I've said, isn't sufficent for an anarchism.
2. Further, Rothbard was always tied up with these terrible cultural assumptions (even in his "New Left" phase) that fully manifested in the 90s with his paleo years and his right-wing class theory ala "right-wing populism" which OPENLY called for the "unleashing of the police on the bums" …Yeah, I object pretty fucking hard to someone who's gonna say that and still call themselves an anarchist of some sort. See Thomas Knapp's latest article "Peckerwood Populism" for more on that.
3. I don't know if he's necessarily *disqualified* from anarchism for this stuff (I'm not saying he is by the way, just pointing out its *definitely* objectionable if you know who Rothbard was…) but his passionate anti-statism just isn't enough *by itself* to be an anarchism. If he had some other convicitions against rulers *in general* then I'd be happy to address that.
"But at the same time we cannot deny he was a "capitalist" in the sense that he understood voluntary relations between employer and employee was in fact NOT slavery but a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship."
Man…is THAT what a capitalist is these days? Zaxlebax man…zaxlebax. (Look up Zaxlebax on Youtube if you don't know what I'm referring to…)
"The "hierarchy" inherent in capitalist firms or corporate structures are not aggressive, violent, unjust, or immoral – they are simple extended chains of voluntary relationships between consumers, shareholders, executives, management, and owners."
Loaded assertions are *quite* loaded here I hope you realize…you have the same hang-up with the word "voluntary" that I've already mentioned to Peace so I won't repeat myself again.
"His work on economics (Man, Economy, and State for the best example) shows the mutually beneficial, interlocking, and harmonious relationships that are formed by peace and free markets – and (for you LLs) if they happen to take the form of a boss paying wages or a shareholder earning dividends, that's perfectly fine."
You're not even gonna *try* arguing for this? I mean…why do you think this should just be taken on it's own terms and accepted without further qualification on your part? Seems a bit weird to argue like you are.
"He combined the anarchist movements of the 19th century with the precise functioning of a market economy via Austrian economics to come to what is now referred to as anarcho-capitalism: A stateless society where individuals own private property and may enter any peaceful relationships or associations they wish."
If by "combined the anarchist movements of the 19th century" you mean.."selectively picked and chose what he liked out of the individualist and dismissed the rest as nonsense and barely paid any good attention to much else"…then yeah…I agree. See the "Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View" if you want sources for that claim.
"The anarcho-capitalist sees nothing immoral about syndicalist, communalistic, or cooperative anarchist movements – precisely because they are voluntary and peaceful."
This *sounds* nice but it's really not any form of *substantial* pluralism when it gets down to it. Why? Because when we look at what you're *actually* say that you're referring to a *certain sort* of pressuppositions and property rights, etc. that go into building up your own concept of "voluntary" and "peaceful" that the syndicalists, et. al. probably don't agree with for starters. So this seems disengenous at best.
But I'd love to be proven wrong especially on this point so please, tell me how I'm wrong here. (not trying to sound like a dick though I imagine it will either way)
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"Do you agree to vice verse? Do the anarcho-collectivists and left-libertarians consider a private property society (an anarcho-capitalist society) a just society? Why not?"
A "private property…society"? I don't even know what that'd really amount to in practice or what norms or values it'd mostly centrally hold (though I can guess…) or what institutions it'd probably favor (though again…I can do some mean guessing games with you if you'd like…but I'd rather not) but that doesn't sound like a society *I* want to live in.
I'm not a *proper*tarian. My foundational value *isn't* property. My foundational *values* are:
Individual liberty, equality of authority and a culture of solidarity based on direct action, mutual aid and reciprocity.
I don't think that is compatible with a "private property society" (whatever that is) and if you want me to expand on why I shall.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
I'm not gonna respond to your stuff with James because…I've kind of already addressed that issue with Peace and I've take on a bit more than I can chew as is.
So that's it from me for now!
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
It appears that I am not an anarchist by your above definition because I support certain people as "non-rulers" who you would label as "rulers"
I do see your point that there could be "rulers" yet no "government." Your definition of "rulers" is so broad, however, that it seems that many self-identified anti-state "anarchists" (myself included) are bound to have at least a few disagreements with you on the question of whether a certain alleged "ruler" is actually a ruler or not, and thus would not be an anarchist by your definition.
For example, I disagree that "absentee owners" of property who enforce their property rights are rulers. There are nothing wrong with "capitalist hotel owners."
For example, if I were to hire someone to manage my house and rent it out to others as a hotel and send me the profits, and then I were to move hundreds of miles away and live my life separately from my hotel-house for years, while having a stream of passive income from my hotel, I do not believe that I would have given up ownership of my hotel. I would retain the right to move back to my house and transform it back from a hotel to my house again for me to live in. I would have the right to exclude others from the property. I would have the right to enforce the contract that I had with my hotel manager if he refused to uphold it, even if he refused to uphold it because of his belief that he now owned my house-hotel and I no-longer owned it since he was the one managing it and I was absent from it.
So anyway, I could say that I am an anarchist by your definition of anarchist and my definition of ruler, however your definition of anarchism is not really the definition that I go by. I tend to define "anarchy" as "no government." Either that, or I define anarchism as "no rulers" while defining "rulers" in such a way that the only "rulers" are "government rulers", thus making it so that "anarchy" is synonymous both with "no governments" and "no rulers."
Thus, in all of the cases where you would argue that some of the people who violate others' rights in a stateless society should be called "rulers", I would either agree with you and say "Well I define anarchy as 'no government', no 'no rulers'" or else I would just say, "I disagree that said rights-violator should be labeled a 'ruler.'"
Anyway, this discussion is meant to determine what is capitalism and what is anarchism and are the two compatible.
I believe I understand your definition of anarchism and I understand that it is different from my definition of anarchism.
I define capitalism as capitalism-3 and I understand that you sometimes define it as both capitalism-3 and capitalism-2. I understand also that there are some anarcho-capitalists who define capitalism as capitalism-1, i.e. the free market. I don't define it that way.
By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is compatible with anarchy (i.e. a free market, even in the security/justice services traditionally considered to be "governmental" services) due to the fact that we can conceive of aggression-free societies that could be characterized as exhibiting capitalism(-3) and because aggression-free societies are necessarily stateless and therefore anarchical.
By your (Nick's) definition and possibly the definitions of some other left libertarians or C4SS people, capitalism may not be compatible with anarchism. This could be because of a number of reasons:
1. If you define capitalism as including capitalism-2 because by definition capitalism-2 involves state aggression and is thus not possible in a condition of anarchy.
2. If you define anarchism as "no rulers" and consider "capitalist-3 owners" of property in a society with capitalist-3 patterns of ownership as "rulers" (e.g. absentee capitalist hotel owners)
I am not sure what else we should clarify on this subject.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
Note: I posted this comment elsewhere (here: http://c4ss.org/content/11676#IDComment433597166 ), but am re-posting it here so that people can find it easier. Hopefully Nick (and others) reply to this version.
——————————-
It appears that I am not an anarchist by your above definition because I support certain people as "non-rulers" who you would label as "rulers"
I do see your point that there could be "rulers" yet no "government." Your definition of "rulers" is so broad, however, that it seems that many self-identified anti-state "anarchists" (myself included) are bound to have at least a few disagreements with you on the question of whether a certain alleged "ruler" is actually a ruler or not, and thus would not be an anarchist by your definition.
For example, I disagree that "absentee owners" of property who enforce their property rights are rulers. There are nothing wrong with "capitalist hotel owners."
For example, if I were to hire someone to manage my house and rent it out to others as a hotel and send me the profits, and then I were to move hundreds of miles away and live my life separately from my hotel-house for years, while having a stream of passive income from my hotel, I do not believe that I would have given up ownership of my hotel. I would retain the right to move back to my house and transform it back from a hotel to my house again for me to live in. I would have the right to exclude others from the property. I would have the right to enforce the contract that I had with my hotel manager if he refused to uphold it, even if he refused to uphold it because of his belief that he now owned my house-hotel and I no-longer owned it since he was the one managing it and I was absent from it.
So anyway, I could say that I am an anarchist by your definition of anarchist and my definition of ruler, however your definition of anarchism is not really the definition that I go by. I tend to define "anarchy" as "no government." Either that, or I define anarchism as "no rulers" while defining "rulers" in such a way that the only "rulers" are "government rulers", thus making it so that "anarchy" is synonymous both with "no governments" and "no rulers."
Thus, in all of the cases where you would argue that some of the people who violate others' rights in a stateless society should be called "rulers", I would either agree with you and say "Well I define anarchy as 'no government', no 'no rulers'" or else I would just say, "I disagree that said rights-violator should be labeled a 'ruler.'"
Anyway, this discussion is meant to determine what is capitalism and what is anarchism and are the two compatible.
I believe I understand your definition of anarchism and I understand that it is different from my definition of anarchism.
I define capitalism as capitalism-3 and I understand that you sometimes define it as both capitalism-3 and capitalism-2. I understand also that there are some anarcho-capitalists who define capitalism as capitalism-1, i.e. the free market. I don't define it that way.
By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is compatible with anarchy (i.e. a free market, even in the security/justice services traditionally considered to be "governmental" services) due to the fact that we can conceive of aggression-free societies that could be characterized as exhibiting capitalism(-3) and because aggression-free societies are necessarily stateless and therefore anarchical.
By your (Nick's) definition and possibly the definitions of some other left libertarians or C4SS people, capitalism may not be compatible with anarchism. This could be because of a number of reasons:
1. If you define capitalism as including capitalism-2 because by definition capitalism-2 involves state aggression and is thus not possible in a condition of anarchy.
2. If you define anarchism as "no rulers" and consider "capitalist-3 owners" of property in a society with capitalist-3 patterns of ownership as "rulers" (e.g. absentee capitalist hotel owners)
I am not sure what else we should clarify on this subject.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
Nick, I re-posted my comment at the end of the thread (here: http://c4ss.org/content/11676#IDComment433599278 ). Please reply to that one so that it is easier for people to follow the discussion chronologically. The location of the comment here is mixed up in the middle of the comment thread and is hard to find.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
Ok, sorry for the confusion-causing Peace…I just wanted to take on the comments *directly* where I saw 'em…
First to the matter of anti-statism vs. anarchism…
———————–
"It appears that I am not an anarchist by your above definition because I support certain people as "non-rulers" who you would label as "rulers"
Right. You're an anti-statist and I don't deny that and I also don't deny you'd be a valuable ally in some aspects or another but I *do* deny you're an anarchist, yes. So long as you merely oppose government and not rulers more broadly.
"I do see your point that there could be "rulers" yet no "government."
Then why continue to just merely be anti-state? I only keep saying "merely" because that's all you really seem to oppose. Is there some *other* big part of your anarchism that you oppose too? 'Cause if so, I ain't seein' it.
"Your definition of "rulers" is so broad, however, that it seems that many self-identified anti-state "anarchists" (myself included) are bound to have at least a few disagreements with you on the question of whether a certain alleged "ruler" is actually a ruler or not, and thus would not be an anarchist by your definition. "
Ok…so what? Just because it's "broad" doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong Peace, you're gonna have to make a more complete argument then that. I also don't think defining rulers as I did was "too broad". I said rulers are people who reinforce/perpetuate norms and values that create disparities of power between individuals without their consent. What's actually *wrong* with that definition? Feel free to elaborate past it just being "broad" if you wouldn't mind…
Government does this through creating a ruling class made up by them and their corporate allies and making the people under them a ruled class. Bosses do this by emphasizing a culture of subordination to their commands and having workers want to work *under* people then work *with* them (this doesn't make bosses *all* bad people or something and different bosses do this to different extents obviously but this just means they're in a bad position to me). And so on.
"For example, if I were to hire someone to manage my house and rent it out to others as a hotel and send me the profits, and then I were to move hundreds of miles away and live my life separately from my hotel-house for years, while having a stream of passive income from my hotel, I do not believe that I would have given up ownership of my hotel."
Right, I would disagree because you're not actually making active use of it. I would say that the *laborers* would own that. Now you *could* make an agreement whereby those laborers *temporarily* own it and once you come back and start laboring on it again it'd be yours. I think that might be cool.
"I would retain the right to move back to my house and transform it back from a hotel to my house again for me to live in. I would have the right to exclude others from the property. I would have the right to enforce the contract that I had with my hotel manager if he refused to uphold it, even if he refused to uphold it because of his belief that he now owned my house-hotel and I no-longer owned it since he was the one managing it and I was absent from it. "
Why? Why should I believe any of this? Because you say so?
Anyways, I don't think you can really claim things that are hundreds of miles in that you have no real control or labor over, especially not over the course of *years*. That just *screams* "right of increase" to me. You're basically saying that Ted Turner's millions of acres are legitimate just because…well just because. He has the muscle to back up the land ownership via the state and corporate technology and guards and a culture that doesn't mind/can't do much about it etc. but when that goes away he's not gonna have as much land. I can tell you that much and I sincerely doubt that hotels would be run this way.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Sorry about posting to the actual posts in question but I figured it'd make more sense substantially for me to do so…"So anyway, I could say that I am an anarchist by your definition of anarchist and my definition of ruler, however your definition of anarchism is not really the definition that I go by. I tend to define "anarchy" as "no government." Either that, or I define anarchism as "no rulers" while defining "rulers" in such a way that the only "rulers" are "government rulers", thus making it so that "anarchy" is synonymous both with "no governments" and "no rulers."
Ok…so what? Why should I believe this definition of anarchism is more useful than what I said?
"Thus, in all of the cases where you would argue that some of the people who violate others' rights in a stateless society should be called "rulers", I would either agree with you and say "Well I define anarchy as 'no government', no 'no rulers'" or else I would just say, "I disagree that said rights-violator should be labeled a 'ruler.'"
Well, so again, you're going against the actual etymology of the word to make up *your own* definitions now with little to no regard for what the word "an-archy" actually means. I take issue with that because that means to me that you're *not* an anarchist and to keep claiming as much is (potentially anyways) harmful in one way or another because it gives anarchism even *more* misperceptions of what it's about.
———————–
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"Anyway, this discussion is meant to determine what is capitalism and what is anarchism and are the two compatible."
You're right, and I apologize if it seems like my stuff on "voluntary hierarchy" and "anti-statism" seem off-topic but it's actually just building up where we agree and where we disagree and why we may do that. I think it'll lend to our disagreements over the validity of our ideas on "capitalistic anarchism" because a lot of the debates between those who identify as such and those who are *opposed* to such typically have debates over such subjects.
"I believe I understand your definition of anarchism and I understand that it is different from my definition of anarchism."
I think that was pretty obvious.
"I define capitalism as capitalism-3 and I understand that you sometimes define it as both capitalism-3 and capitalism-2."
Well yes, sometimes actually-existng capitalism can be capitalism-2 or it can be -3 but in any case I'm sure you know that I oppose both.
"I understand also that there are some anarcho-capitalists who define capitalism as capitalism-1, i.e. the free market. I don't define it that way."
Well that's good 'cause I'd totally disagree.
"By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is…"
Ho ho ho my friend! No…I haven't turned into Santa…(though my name *is* Nick…) but I just want to point out we should keep the viewing audience at home up-to-date with what we mean byt "capitalism-3" if we're gonna use that term.
Now, folks, we're using the "capitalism" definitions from Gary Chartier's, "Advocates of Freed Markets should Advocate "Anti-Capitalism"' and his definition of capitalism-3 is as follows:
capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]
There…now we may continue…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Ok, sorry for the confusion-causing Peace…I just wanted to take on the comments *directly* where I saw 'em…
First to the matter of anti-statism vs. anarchism…
———————–
"It appears that I am not an anarchist by your above definition because I support certain people as "non-rulers" who you would label as "rulers"
Right. You're an anti-statist and I don't deny that and I also don't deny you'd be a valuable ally in some aspects or another but I *do* deny you're an anarchist, yes. So long as you merely oppose government and not rulers more broadly.
"I do see your point that there could be "rulers" yet no "government."
Then why continue to just merely be anti-state? I only keep saying "merely" because that's all you really seem to oppose. Is there some *other* big part of your anarchism that you oppose too? 'Cause if so, I ain't seein' it.
"Your definition of "rulers" is so broad, however, that it seems that many self-identified anti-state "anarchists" (myself included) are bound to have at least a few disagreements with you on the question of whether a certain alleged "ruler" is actually a ruler or not, and thus would not be an anarchist by your definition. "
Ok…so what? Just because it's "broad" doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong Peace, you're gonna have to make a more complete argument then that. I also don't think defining rulers as I did was "too broad". I said rulers are people who reinforce/perpetuate norms and values that create disparities of power between individuals without their consent. What's actually *wrong* with that definition? Feel free to elaborate past it just being "broad" if you wouldn't mind…
Government does this through creating a ruling class made up by them and their corporate allies and making the people under them a ruled class. Bosses do this by emphasizing a culture of subordination to their commands and having workers want to work *under* people then work *with* them (this doesn't make bosses *all* bad people or something and different bosses do this to different extents obviously but this just means they're in a bad position to me). And so on.
"For example, if I were to hire someone to manage my house and rent it out to others as a hotel and send me the profits, and then I were to move hundreds of miles away and live my life separately from my hotel-house for years, while having a stream of passive income from my hotel, I do not believe that I would have given up ownership of my hotel."
Right, I would disagree because you're not actually making active use of it. I would say that the *laborers* would own that. Now you *could* make an agreement whereby those laborers *temporarily* own it and once you come back and start laboring on it again it'd be yours. I think that might be cool.
"I would retain the right to move back to my house and transform it back from a hotel to my house again for me to live in. I would have the right to exclude others from the property. I would have the right to enforce the contract that I had with my hotel manager if he refused to uphold it, even if he refused to uphold it because of his belief that he now owned my house-hotel and I no-longer owned it since he was the one managing it and I was absent from it. "
Why? Why should I believe any of this? Because you say so?
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Anyways, I don't think you can really claim things that are hundreds of miles in that you have no real control or labor over, especially not over the course of *years*. That just *screams* "right of increase" to me. You're basically saying that Ted Turner's millions of acres are legitimate just because…well just because. He has the muscle to back up the land ownership via the state and corporate technology and guards and a culture that doesn't mind/can't do much about it etc. but when that goes away he's not gonna have as much land. I can tell you that much and I sincerely doubt that hotels would be run this way.
"So anyway, I could say that I am an anarchist by your definition of anarchist and my definition of ruler, however your definition of anarchism is not really the definition that I go by. I tend to define "anarchy" as "no government." Either that, or I define anarchism as "no rulers" while defining "rulers" in such a way that the only "rulers" are "government rulers", thus making it so that "anarchy" is synonymous both with "no governments" and "no rulers."
Ok…so what? Why should I believe this definition of anarchism is more useful than what I said?
"Thus, in all of the cases where you would argue that some of the people who violate others' rights in a stateless society should be called "rulers", I would either agree with you and say "Well I define anarchy as 'no government', no 'no rulers'" or else I would just say, "I disagree that said rights-violator should be labeled a 'ruler.'"
Well, so again, you're going against the actual etymology of the word to make up *your own* definitions now with little to no regard for what the word "an-archy" actually means. I take issue with that because that means to me that you're *not* an anarchist and to keep claiming as much is (potentially anyways) harmful in one way or another because it gives anarchism even *more* misperceptions of what it's about.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"Anyway, this discussion is meant to determine what is capitalism and what is anarchism and are the two compatible."
You're right, and I apologize if it seems like my stuff on "voluntary hierarchy" and "anti-statism" seem off-topic but it's actually just building up where we agree and where we disagree and why we may do that. I think it'll lend to our disagreements over the validity of our ideas on "capitalistic anarchism" because a lot of the debates between those who identify as such and those who are *opposed* to such typically have debates over such subjects.
"I believe I understand your definition of anarchism and I understand that it is different from my definition of anarchism."
I think that was pretty obvious.
"I define capitalism as capitalism-3 and I understand that you sometimes define it as both capitalism-3 and capitalism-2."
Well yes, sometimes actually-existng capitalism can be capitalism-2 or it can be -3 but in any case I'm sure you know that I oppose both.
"I understand also that there are some anarcho-capitalists who define capitalism as capitalism-1, i.e. the free market. I don't define it that way."
Well that's good 'cause I'd totally disagree.
"By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is…"
Ho ho ho my friend! No…I haven't turned into Santa…(though my name *is* Nick…) but I just want to point out we should keep the viewing audience at home up-to-date with what we mean byt "capitalism-3" if we're gonna use that term.
Now, folks, we're using the "capitalism" definitions from Gary Chartier's, "Advocates of Freed Markets should Advocate "Anti-Capitalism"' and his definition of capitalism-3 is as follows:
capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]
There…now we may continue…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"…compatible with anarchy (i.e. a free market, even in the security/justice services traditionally considered to be "governmental" services) due to the fact that we can conceive of aggression-free societies that could be characterized as exhibiting capitalism(-3) and because aggression-free societies are necessarily stateless and therefore anarchical."
A few points:
1. This is why I'm *not* a "free market anarchist" or a "market anarchist" because I take Feyerbend's "epistemological anarchism" too seriously to really believe that "everything inside the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market" etc. Anarchism=/= freed markets. That's *probably* how it'd work out based on what I know but freed markets *aren't* anarchism becuase (as NullVoid helpfully pointed out) anarchism is much more about *freedom* than it is about markets. Markets are just *one* way to get to this freedom. Now, don't get me wrong, markets (in their freed LL sense) might be our best bet but I just don't buy (no pun intended
) that not only is it our *only* hope but that it's, in fact, *synonamous* with anarchism. That just seems too all-encompassing for me Peace.
2. Simply privatizing/marketizing the state's services isn't really anarchism I'm afriad. Anarchism means establishing in our new alternative organizations and culture that there are no rulers (not merely "no aggression", see my earlier responses with "thiness" to see the probvlems with this POV). So I don't actually believe this is *sufficent* to establish a more anarchic order. It's *necessary* to some degree or another, but sufficent? I doth protest good sir!
3. There's no such thing as an "aggression-free" society and that's completely antithetical to even what a lot of an-caps/anti-statists/voluntaryists say to begin with. You guys (and I myself) merely want to reduce aggression to as much as possible but it's *never* gonna be at the level of *zero*. That's because this assumes that *all* people *everywhere* will stop aggressing against other people which I think given what people are (a mixed bag of good and bad, thopugh with the proper incentives, institutions and community norms I think people would, on average, tend to be more good than bad) I don't think that's a realistic form of thinking.
4. (Yes, I'm going to four because I think there's *that* much wrong with this…sorry
)
Just because we can *concieve* of something doesn't mean it's probable. The "capitalism-3" Gary talks about is *ultimately* against the spirit of anarchism. Why? Because too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few people. In an anarchism power should be *dispersed* but instead of *dispersing* the power out of capital and the state and making it *better* for labor (not saying labor should hold a monopoly either, I'm no laborist!
) ou simply seem to want to change the hands of power over to capital. I'm not cool with that and I don't think that's going to end well when the concentrators of capital *own* the workplaces and society at large (which invarabily they will with things like "the right of increase" and the inevitable power disparities that would arise from them holding so much capital which in capital-ism *is* de facto power) which I *definitely* don't think is combinable with anarchism.
"By your (Nick's) definition and possibly the definitions of some other left libertarians or C4SS people, capitalism may not be compatible with anarchism. This could be because of a number of reasons:
1. If you define capitalism as including capitalism-2 because by definition capitalism-2 involves state aggression and is thus not possible in a condition of anarchy.
2. If you define anarchism as "no rulers" and consider "capitalist-3 owners" of property in a society with capitalist-3 patterns of ownership as "rulers" (e.g. absentee capitalist hotel owners)"
Yeah, I'd say both of those things are accurate.
"I am not sure what else we should clarify on this subject."
*shrugs*
You got me man…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
“So long as you merely oppose government and not rulers more broadly…. [W]hy continue to just merely be anti-state?”
I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression.
“Ok…so what? Just because it's "broad" doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong Peace, you're gonna have to make a more complete argument then that.”
It’s not an argument; it’s a statement regarding why I define “anarchy” the way I do rather than the way you do. I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist, and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford.
“I said rulers are people who reinforce/perpetuate norms and values that create disparities of power between individuals without their consent. What's actually *wrong* with that definition?”
Frankly I don’t see what’s right about it. What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”? Does this include verbally supporting certain values? Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you.
“Right, I would disagree because you're not actually making active use of it.”
To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them.
“I would say that the *laborers* would own that.”
Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so? The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it.
“Why? Why should I believe any of this? Because you say so?”
Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights. Your rule above that seems to be that the *current* occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner doesn’t work because it doesn’t serve to avoid conflict over scare resources. Your rule would mean that might makes right—the state we would be in without property rights rules to make the cooperative conflict-free use of scare resources possible.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
I am not familiar with Ted Turner or the term “right of increase.”
“I can tell you that much and I sincerely doubt that hotels would be run this way.”
Economic predictions are irrelevant to the question of justice and the discussion of definitions.
“Ok…so what? Why should I believe this definition of anarchism is more useful than what I said?”
You don’t have to. I thought you were interested in understanding what I mean by “anarchism”.
“Well, so again, you're going against the actual etymology of the word to make up *your own* definitions now with little to no regard for what the word "an-archy" actually means. I take issue with that because that means to me that you're *not* an anarchist and to keep claiming as much is (potentially anyways) harmful in one way or another because it gives anarchism even *more* misperceptions of what it's about.”
Well that’s unfortunate. This discussion isn’t about determining what *the definition* of terms are. It’s about understanding what different self-described anarchists, capitalists, and anti-capitalists really mean when they use these labels to refer to their views.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
I said: "Anyway, this discussion is meant to determine what is capitalism and what is anarchism and are the two compatible.”
I would just like to clarify this. That is what the title of the discussion says, but really it’s not about determing “what is capitalism” etc, so much as what do different people *mean* by “capitalism,” etc. And thus, it’s also about whether “capitalism” and “anarchism” *as defined by these people* are compatible with each other.
“"By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is…"
Ho ho ho my friend! No…I haven't turned into Santa….”
I don’t understand your “ho ho ho.” Why do you think my statement is false? Let’s examine your next comment on the subject.
“capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]”
I am using this as the definition of capitalism, yes.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
“That's *probably* how it'd work out based on what I know but freed markets *aren't* anarchism becuase (as NullVoid helpfully pointed out) anarchism is much more about *freedom* than it is about markets. Markets are just *one* way to get to this freedom. Now, don't get me wrong, markets (in their freed LL sense) might be our best bet but I just don't buy (no pun intended
) that not only is it our *only* hope but that it's, in fact, *synonamous* with anarchism. That just seems too all-encompassing for me Peace.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Let me break it down even further:
“That's *probably* how it'd work out” – What’s probably how what would work out? Free markets are probably how anrachy would work out? What does that even mean?
“but freed markets *aren't* anarchism” – Free markets are anarchy, not anarchism. “Free market” is a term used to describe the kind of state (condition) that society is in. Anarchy is also a term used to described the kind of state society is in. My view is that a society that can accurately be described as having a “free market” *must* also be in a state of “anarchy.” Note that the opposite is not true: you can have a condition of “anarchy” without having a condition of a “free market.”
“Markets are just *one* way to get to this freedom” – Uhh… perhaps I should just ask: What’s another way?
“2. Simply privatizing/marketizing the state's services isn't really anarchism I'm afriad.”
I never said it was. What I said is that a free market must be anarchy. You can’t have a free market without also having anarchy.
“Anarchism means establishing in our new alternative organizations and culture that there are no rulers (not merely "no aggression", see my earlier responses with "thiness" to see the probvlems with this POV).”
I didn’t see thiness’ comments when I looked through the thread earlier. You’ll have to link to them if you want me to check them out as I don’t want to have to look through the various layers of comments again to try to find the comments.
..cont:
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
…cont: “3. There's no such thing as an "aggression-free" society”
Of course there is. If you disagree then clearly your view of justice is self-contradictory because that is the only way to make an agression-free society impossible.
“You guys (and I myself) merely want to reduce aggression to as much as possible…”
I never said that. As a libertarian I consider aggression unjust. It’s wrong for me or others to commit aggression. But I don’t necessarily want to make it my life goal to reduce the amount of aggression in the world as much as possible: I am not obligated to persuade others to not commit aggression.
“…but it's *never* gonna be at the level of *zero*. That's because this assumes that *all* people *everywhere* will stop aggressing against other people which I think given what people are (a mixed bag of good and bad, thopugh with the proper incentives, institutions and community norms I think people would, on average, tend to be more good than bad) I don't think that's a realistic form of thinking.”
Your comments are confused: two quotes ago you said “there’s no such thing as an ‘aggression-free’ society” and now your comment suggests that you believe that there is such a thing, but that it is extremely unlikely to occur… so unlikely that you claim that it will *never* occur. Note that the latter issue is irrelevant: whether or not an aggression-free society is ever likely to occur or not is not part of this palaver (you may want to read this article (again?) http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.ht… ) . Let’s recall my use of “aggression-free”:
Me: Anarchy and capitalism(-3) are compatible because “we can conceive of aggression-free societies that could be characterized as exhibiting capitalism(-3) and because aggression-free societies are necessarily stateless and therefore anarchical.”
In other words, aggression-free capitalist-3 anarchies are conceivable and thus by definition of “compatible” anarchy and capitalism-3 are compatible.
“Just because we can *concieve* of something doesn't mean it's probable.”
Oh wow, are you agreeing that it is conceivable that there could be a capitalist anarchy as I said earlier as my reason for why anarchism and capitalism are compatible? Or are you just randomly stating this as if I’m too dumb to be aware of the obvious truth? If the former, can you explain now the “ho ho ho” from earlier?:
“"By my definitions capitalism is perfectly compatible with anarchism. Capitalism(-3) is…"
Ho ho ho my friend!”
I maintain that they are compatible due to the fact that a capitalist anarchist society (by my uses of the two terms: capitalism-3 and statelessness) is conceivable. So what’s with your ho ho ho? I don’t understand.
My recent post Dispelling the Myth of Violent Chaos with the Truth of the Free Market
(Post 1)
" What’s probably how what would work out? Free markets are probably how anrachy would work" out?"
Yes…except *freed*…not free…
"What does that even mean?"
Anarchic systems would *tend* to have the economic structures and same proclivities that a *freed* market would have. Make more sense?
"Free markets are anarchy, not anarchism."
Free(d) markets are a *type* of anarchy, is that what you mean? Then yes, we agree…well except on the type of markets that'd predominate…but whatever.
"Free market” is a term used to describe the kind of state (condition) that society is in. Anarchy is also a term used to described the kind of state society is in."
Correct.
"My view is that a society that can accurately be described as having a “free market” *must* also be in a state of “anarchy.”
Ok.
"Note that the opposite is not true: you can have a condition of “anarchy” without having a condition of a “free market.” "
Alright, cool.
"What’s another way?"
Gift economies, barter systems, systems more foundationally built on *other* values besides exchange, markets and so on but individual liberty, equality of authority and a culture of solidarity based on mutual aid, direct action and the ethical principle of reciprocity.
"I never said it was. What I said is that a free market must be anarchy. You can’t have a free market without also having anarchy."
If that's all you were saying (and I'll assume so for your sake since you don't seem to want to debate much of this any further) then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say I apologize for misinterpreting you.
"I didn’t see thiness’ comments when I looked through the thread earlier. You’ll have to link to them if you want me to check them out as I don’t want to have to look through the various layers of comments again to try to find the comments. "
Well you should've…they're the comments right after your *first* comments.
The one where you say…
"Let’s get started with some details of our views. What do you mean by “hierarchy” here? Do you mean coercive hierarchical relationships in which some people have aggressive power over others? If so, I would agree with you."
Sorry for the lack of clarity on that one man…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"Of course there is. If you disagree then clearly your view of justice is self-contradictory because that is the only way to make an agression-free society impossible. "
Untrue. I could (as I do) think aggression should be *minimized* to the highest extent possible but *still* think we're ever gonna be *free* of aggression is a pipe dream.
sort of how Kinsella (apparently…didn't know this until you said it on this thread) *believes* in the principles of anarchism but doesn't actually think it'll ever happen.
"I never said that."
Well no, you never *said* that but by "you guys" I meant:
I was under the impression that this is the *general consensus* among an-caps.
Am I wrong to think that?
"As a libertarian I consider aggression unjust."
With you.
"It’s wrong for me or others to commit aggression."
Still with you.
"But I don’t necessarily want to make it my life goal to reduce the amount of aggression in the world as much as possible: I am not obligated to persuade others to not commit aggression. "
…Not with you. What? Why?
"…and now your comment suggests that you believe that there is such a thing,"
How's that? I just said, given the right rules, incentive structures and institutions people *on the average* would be good (or something approaching good…) not that it'd be *absolutely* aggression free. How did you conflate the two?
"Oh wow, are you agreeing that it is conceivable that there could be a capitalist anarchy as I said earlier as my reason for why anarchism and capitalism are compatible? Or are you just randomly stating this as if I’m too dumb to be aware of the obvious truth?"
The latter. But no I wasn't suggesting you're too dumb to know that dude, it's just a friendly philosophical reminder. Chill man.
"If the former, can you explain now the “ho ho ho” from earlier?"
"So what’s with your ho ho ho? I don’t understand. "
"I don’t understand your “ho ho ho.”'
I just want to clear up this "ho ho ho" hang-up you have here by simply quoting what I said:
"Ho ho ho my friend! No…I haven't turned into Santa…(though my name *is* Nick…) but I just want to point out we should keep the viewing audience at home up-to-date with what we mean byt "capitalism-3" if we're gonna use that term.
Now, folks, we're using the "capitalism" definitions from Gary Chartier's, "Advocates of Freed Markets should Advocate "Anti-Capitalism"' and his definition of capitalism-3 is as follows:
capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]
There…now we may continue… "
What part of: "…but I just want to point out we should keep the viewing audience at home up-to-date with what we mean byt "capitalism-3" if we're gonna use that term." didn't you get Peace?
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I would just like to clarify this. That is what the title of the discussion says, but really it’s not about determing “what is capitalism” etc, so much as what do different people *mean* by “capitalism,” etc. And thus, it’s also about whether “capitalism” and “anarchism” *as defined by these people* are compatible with each other."
Oh, ok. Sorry then. If that's what you want to focus on then we shall.
We (roughly) know (I think) by now what terms we're using and why we feel they're compatible or not compatible with anarchism right?
"I am not familiar with Ted Turner or the term “right of increase.” "
1. Ted Turner – "He was the largest private landowner in the United States until John C. Malone surpassed him in 2011." (Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner)
2. "Right of increase" – http://mutualisminfo.blogspot.com/2012/07/faqs.ht… specifically:
"USURY / AUBAINES / THE RIGHT OF INCREASE / RENT, PROFIT, & INTEREST / ANTI-CAPITALISM—Whether we're talking about Carsonian "free-market anti-capitalism" or the neo-Proudhonian mutualisms, the hottest topic is probably that business of the relationship to capitalism. Some other social anarchists are concerned that the very acceptance of any form of market amounts to, or will lead to, capitalism. Some capitalists, whether they consider themselves anarchists or not, think that mutualism will prevent economic relations which are vital to freedom—while others wonder what the big deal is, since mutualism seems like what they call "capitalism" with weird rules about land, and funny definitions of "rent," "interest," and "profit." Arguably, beneath the divergent definitions, there really is one key issue—what we frequently refer to as "the right of increase," the general belief that having wealth gives one a right to accumulate more wealth, provided you can do so without engaging in actions recognized by those who accept the basic premise (partisans of "increase") as overt "force or fraud"—which is not recognized by social anarchists, including many if not most of those who call themselves mutualists."
"Eonomic predictions are irrelevant to the question of justice and the discussion of definitions."
Absolutely not. How systems of people interact has *everything* to do with terminology and the pursuit of justice for if people interact in certain ways in the future society then there is gonna be some level of justice needed and some level of knowledge of the definitions being used right?
I don't understand why that's controversial to you Peace.
"You don’t have to. I thought you were interested in understanding what I mean by “anarchism”. "
No, I already *knew* what you meant by anarchism and *knew* I disagreed with it. Why did you think I was interested in it by the way? I don't remember giving such an indication…
"Well that’s unfortunate. This discussion isn’t about determining what *the definition* of terms are. It’s about understanding what different self-described anarchists, capitalists, and anti-capitalists really mean when they use these labels to refer to their views. "
Understood. I shall endeavour to de-emphasize that part of the discussion as best as possible then and, again, I apologize about that.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
"I am not merely opposed to government. I just use the word “anarchy” to mean “no government.” That doesn’t mean that I don’t oppose certain things that could take place in “anarchy”. The fact is I do. I’m a libertarian: I oppose all aggression."
Right…so even when aggression happens in the private sector right? If so then that's good. But it seems even just *defining* anarchism as *opposition to governments* and saying that's *central* to it misses historically, eytemologically and substantially what anarchism is about. And by substantially I mean what perspective would actually get us better real-world/material results for our struggles. (I like speaking as if I'm a Marxist sometimes…shoot me
)
"I don’t define anarchy the way you do because by your defintion anyone who disagrees with your sense of justice, even in the slightest of ways, is not an anarchist…"
Well that's not true at all. Why do you think that? And what "sense of justice" have I talked about exactly? Anyways, there's a variety of anarchists to me and epsecially since I'm an anarchist without adjectives I find this claim pretty ridiculous. Just because I don't consider you an anarchist in the same sense I am doesn't mean I just exclude anyone who even "slightly" agrees with. I don't know if you've noticed man but we pretty clearly dsiasagree on some important matters to a noticable degree. Which includes (but is not limited to): What anarchism means to begin with, property, hierarchy and more.
"…and I don’t see a reason to use the term anarchy to mean something so narrow and arbitrary as the way you use it–a society that is perfectly just according to Nick Ford."
I don't see a reason to just re-state and rephrase something you've already said unless you're just trying to be spiteful. And if you're trying to be spiteful over this then I just can't see why I'd want to tal to you as this is a pretty petty thing to get spiteful about. I'm just explaining where I am and how I see you in relation to me. It's not out of malice or some sort of drive to insult you or whatever. I still consider you a potential ally in many more respects than most people on the left would so if anything I'm being pretty considerate of you and your position ALL things considered…
"What do you mean by “reinforce/perpetuate norms and values”?"
I mean, individuals who hold certain ideas of how society should be operated and try to impose such on communities in a variety of ways.
"Does this include verbally supporting certain values?"
Sure, it *can* be that. That's why (I think)
"Certainly rulers have to use force to qualify as rulers? If you disagree then great, have your definition. You can use it, but I’m not going to. I It wouldn’t be worth the time/effort to try to persuade you. "
I don't know why such an important matter wouldn't be worth your time…but yes obviously a part of rulers *can* be the use of force…
"To me that’s a non-reason because my view is that you don’t lose ownership of things when you stop using them. "
It's not *just* about the non-use/possession of them (though that's part of it of course)
"Why? Why should I believe that? Because you say so?"
Oh…you're funny.
Ok, ok, you got me there.
"The laborers don’t gain ownership of the proepty just because they are using it."
Anyways the landlord doesn't *keep* the property merely because they *once* used it and *now* they couldn't care less about it which is shown by them moving *hundreds* of miles away and staying there for *years*. So it seems we're at an impasse here.
"Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow…
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Anyways I'm not gonna object to this 'cause that's not the point of this conversation. Bring it up on the Facebook thread if you want to though.
(That's here, for you folks at home: https://www.facebook.com/nick.ford.5811/posts/268…
"Your rule above that seems to be that the *current* occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner doesn’t work because it doesn’t serve to avoid conflict over scare resources. Your rule would mean that might makes right—the state we would be in without property rights rules to make the cooperative conflict-free use of scare resources possible."
It's funny 'cause I'd argue the same thing for *your* position. But again, you're not interested in this debate so I'll cut it out…for now.
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part 1: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Nick, this did not help me understand what you meant by "ho ho ho" at all. What did you mean by "ho ho ho"?
And also, I still have no idea what your answer to my question is:
""Oh wow, are you agreeing that it is conceivable that there could be a capitalist anarchy as I said earlier as my reason for why anarchism and capitalism are compatible? Or are you just randomly stating this as if I’m too dumb to be aware of the obvious truth?"
The latter. But no I wasn't suggesting you're too dumb to know that dude, it's just a friendly philosophical reminder. Chill man. "
How is that an answer? Do you agree with me that a capitalist anarchy is conceivable or do you disagree? I think your answer may be sarcastic, but I am not sure and I am not about to guess, since your answer is very important to the matter that is in dispute (the compatibility of anarchy and capitalism). Could you please just explicitly provide an answer rather than have me guess at what you are trying to say? Thank you.
My recent post Just Say “No”
""Because the only justifiable homesteading rule is first occupancy. The first occupier of a scare resource becomes the owner. This is the only objective, fair rule to avoid conflict over scare resources—the very function of property rights."
Wow…and you called my definition of *anarchism* narrow… "
I wasn't defining anarchism…. I was explaining to you why I disagree that you can title to another person's land by occupying and using their land as a part of a long-term contractual relationship.
My recent post Just Say “No”
…What? Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't what I *said* illuminate that enough? I quoted what I said and then explained it…what else is there to do?
Why are you hung up on the words, "ho ho ho"? I just don't get it. I was just using that as an interjectorary thing to fill in the missing details "for the folks back home" (AKA the viewing audience that *doesn't* know what capitalism-3 means off the top of their head).
Again, what's confusing about this?
"How is that an answer?
I wasn't *trying* to answer things but just defuse your tone. You sounded hostile and I was more inclined to defuse the tone then address what you said. Plus I *already* said that there's a difference between *concivabillity* and *probability*. I can *concieve* of rainbows but that doesn't mean it's actually *probable* they exist…
What else do you want me to say on that matter Peace?
My recent post Reflections and Responses #2: The Ethics of Liberty: Part I: Natural Law, Introduction to Chapter 3
Sorry for the tone. I would blame it on the fact that after multiple pages of discussion I still have not been able to find out what you simple yes or no answer is to my question is. It's frustrating. Even in this last reply you still didn't provide an answer. I'll repeat myself once more…..:
***"Do you agree with me that a capitalist anarchy is conceivable or do you disagree?"***
My recent post Just Say “No”
I disappear and I see the conversation has moved in an extremely illuminating direction.
Great job, both of you.