Thoughts on Anarchism

[tywins]

0 government is the answer as substantial benefits show in a populace under freedom. Power always exist with or without government, with government power is limited to the wealthy and those in high position where as no government power is a more common asset. Then you run into the problem of power spread to thin and classes emerging, this is (in my opinion) the point of an anarchist rule. Though my compatriots may disagree a classfilled society leads to competition amongst a free market unlike the mockery many 'capitalist' societies claim to inhabit. Prosperity goes to those who deserve it in an anarchy society.

Sent from my VS870 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s more an anachronism than ‘anarchism.’

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

This statement has 4 likes?!?!?

Anarchy means, "a state of society without government or law." So all Anarchists hate the Government in general and can't be persuaded otherwise. Government is bad no matter what, therefor, the Constitution is BAD under the Anarchist realm.

And again, he's correct, they can't be "collectivists. They can't collect information. They are set up as anti-Government no matter what information. Information doesn't matter to them.

This kid just exposed a lot about himself in this post.

It means without government. It does not mean without law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchists believe in ZERO Government.

As a Libertarian, you probably see that the most Liberty thrives in ZERO Government.

As a WORLD we saw the greatest chaos in zero government.

If you are truly a Libertarian you probably read the Constitution and notice that it's 100% Government. Yes, the Constitution is Government.

Strange how we set standards after killing the Indians that History books said didn't exist so we could discover 'Merica.

EVERY PARTY should focus on LIBERTY. But the Libertarian party ONLY focuses on Liberty instead of thinking for themselves. They see Liberty no matter what, they even cross the Constitution they hold dear to make their perspective clear.

I stand by common sense, not a party.

Well, for starters, nobody is talking about the Libertarian Party except for you. They're irrelevant to this discussion as they have nothing to do with anarchism. Secondly, when did "we" see this greatest chaos with zero government? Remember that the greatest butcheries of the 20th century all involved government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then why can't I just kill you and take your liver since you don't own it?

Fair question. I would like to think we can respect one another's right to exist and my liver is a definite part of my existence. But we must acknowledge there is no non-circular justification for not harming another person. Richard Rorty explains this very well:

For liberal ironists, there is no answer to the question "Why not be
cruel?" - no noncircular theoretical backup for the belief that cruelty is
horrible. Nor is there an answer to the question "How do you decide
when to struggle against injustice and when to devote yourself to private
projects of self-creation?" This question strikes liberal ironists as just as
hopeless as the questions "Is it right to deliver n innocents over to be
tortured to save the lives of m x n other innocents? If so, what are the
correct values of nand m?" or the question "When may one favor members
of one's family, or one's community, over other, randomly chosen,
human beings?" Anybody who thinks that there are well-grounded theoretical
answers to this sort of question - algorithms for resolving moral
dilemmas of this sort - is still, in his heart, a theologian or a metaphysician.
He believes in an order beyond time and change which both determines
the point of human existence and establishes a hierarchy of
responsibilities.

Maybe you don't think humans have natural rights and I do not think they are inherent myself. However, bands, communities, tribes, nations simply cannot exist without some level of trust. Game theory speaks of this in unique terms where the barrier of trust is lowered in order to conduct business. This means we can benefit each other by not killing one another. That instead of simply gaining a liver one time I can gain multiple rewards from keeping you alive. Certainly cultural inculcation is important: teaching people that incentives naturally involve the self and others is important, even if altruism is really just a form of self-exultation (which is argued very well by Mark Twain in "What is Man?") though I believe and know in my immediate experience I forgo personal desires at times to serve others because I love them and care about them as I do my own personal self. This seems to be utterly natural human activity and its hard to act as if others do not matter when they don't influence my profit-maximization.

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"How is deprivation the natural state of humans under capitalism?"

The radical idea of capitalism is that people are only granted rights they earn in the market. This was identified by David Ricardo and considered the new science (economics). That Ricardo proves with certainty that it is best for each person to solely consider their own interest as he writes he had proven to the degree of the laws of Newton. Thus, outside the rights gained in the marketplace humans have no rights. Humans without rights thus have no right to exist or access to water. This is the definition of deprivation and if the natural state of human beings is to have no rights (until they gain them in the market) then deprivation, the lack of rights becomes the natural state of human being.

Ricardo certainly had what many Austrians might call "physics envy," a plague which still persists in modern economics today, but economics is not a physical science regardless of how much some people want it to be. Economics is, as Mises put it, the study of human action, and so cannot be studied the same way, for example, gravity can be. Humans are not constant, so to compare Ricardo to Newton is pointless.

While it's true that all human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc..., are derived directly from private property rights, I find it difficult to say that the market leads to a deprivation of rights. The market's natural tendency is to advance and be ever more productive, thus leading to benefits for everybody. As this process goes and more and more people benefit to ever higher degrees there's no rational reason to state that people are being deprived of their rights. In fact it is the market, through private property, that is the only guarantor of rights. Governments change their minds on a whim, but property rights in the market are guaranteed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Murray Rothbard and libertarianism:

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

19.For samples of Rothbard's vision, see for example, Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, New York: Macmillan, 1973, especially chs. 10-13. An excerpt (pp. 202, 210, 214-216, 220-221, 229, 269-270):
Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital. . . . Any maverick road owner who insisted on a left-hand drive or green for "stop" instead of "go" would soon find himself with numerous accidents, and the disappearance of customers and users. . . . [W]hat about driving on congested urban streets? How could this be priced? There are numerous possible ways. In the first place the downtown street owners might require anyone driving on their streets to buy a license. . . . Modern technology may make feasible the requirement that all cars equip themselves with a meter. . . . Professor Vickery has also suggested . . . T.V. cameras at the intersections of the most congested streets. . . .
f police services were supplied on a free, competitive market . . . consumers would pay for whatever degree of protection they wish to purchase. The consumers who just want to see a policeman once in a while would pay less than those who want continuous patrolling, and far less than those who demand twenty-four-hour bodyguard service. . . . Any police firm that suffers from gross inefficiency would soon go bankrupt and disappear. . . . Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients' friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue. . . . Possibly, each individual would subscribe to a court service, paying a monthly premimum. . . . If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts.

Excerpt from Understanding Power.

Is it hateful for McDonald's to make a chicken sandwich and then charge people to eat them? I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky said yes, given his socialism, but does anybody really feel bad engaging in the market in such a way?

 

[editec]

I refuse to take anyone who calls himself an anarchist seriously UNLESS he means that he believes in NO GOVERNMENT WHATEVER.

jUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BUST UP WHATEVER GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS NOW AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING YOU IMAGINE WILL BE BETTER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANARCHIST.

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If one has any order, any government it is NOT in a state of anarchy.

One cannot be an anachro-communist.

The phase makes NO sense.

 

[gnarlylove]

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

Do you have the natural inclination to murder? A few pathological people do but the numbers are fairly low in wider society. For the rest of us sensible human beings, we don't need laws to tell us what's right and wrong. For how else could tribes exist? No written law existed yet they naturally took care of one another.

I want to quote the Tao Te Ching, an ancient text from 2500 years ago in China., verse 18 and 19:
18:
When the greatness of the Tao [consciousness] is present, action arises from one’s own heart.
When the greatness of the Tao is absent, action comes from the rules of “kindness and justice.”
If you need rules to be kind and just,
if you act virtuous, this is a sure sign that virtue is absent.
Thus we see the great hypocrisy.
When kinship falls into discord, piety and rites of devotion arise.
When the country falls into chaos,
official loyalists will appear; patriotism is born.

19:
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.

Give up kindness, renounce morality,
And men will rediscover filial piety and love.

Give up ingenuity, renounce profit,
And bandits and thieves will disappear.

These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realise one's true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire

The Tao simply means the subtle essence of the universe and is not important to understanding the point. Laws are external to human beings. Hell, has a law ever stopped you from doing something you are getting ready to do? For me it has only on occasion but it doesn't work all the time and so laws don't even serve the purpose you seem to think they do.

Morality is internal, it has a genetic component as well as cultural. We understand this through cross cultural sociology that examines behavior and identifies patterns that emerge. Shunning murder is among these patterns. So is empathetic behavior and consideration of other humans (which is conspicuously absent from the principles of anarcho-capitalism--"self interest is the only sensible way to go").

So I don't think you are asking a serious question. Instead you are trying to confuse the matter by raising issues that don't matter in the real world. Of course law is helpful but is by no means inherent and only serves as a mild deterrent, not a genuine prohibitive measure. Such measures can only come from within. We have major issues in the United States and the harshest punishments but we still have relatively highly "violent crime" rates compared to similar countries. So harsher law does not address the issues of violence or murder. Either this is genetic or cultural to America. I firmly believe its cultural stemming from harsh living conditions (constantly working, US works 6 hours for every 5 the European works) and a lively gun culture.

Slave owners offered the same reasoning that we should have slaves because if we own something, we take care of them. This was a legitimate argument from the south in the 1850s. One can either romanticize slaves or you can look at how they were treated. If you approach the latter you realize owning people did not mean they were treated as they ought to be, namely, free beings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

@manifold @gnarlylove @TakeAStepBack

Anarchists believe in ZERO Government.

As a Libertarian, you probably see that the most Liberty thrives in ZERO Government.

As a WORLD we saw the greatest chaos in zero government.

When did the world see maximum chaos in your educated and informed opinion? Personally, I think it was during a period when the world saw lots of government, but I am willing to be proven wrong, if you have actual examples.

If you are truly a Libertarian you probably read the Constitution and notice that it's 100% Government. Yes, the Constitution is Government.

If you read the Constitution you will see it is all about limiting government, which is why it says things like "Congress shall make no law...".

Strange how we set standards after killing the Indians that History books said didn't exist so we could discover 'Merica.

I have no idea what kind of history books you have been reading but you really need to find new source materials.

EVERY PARTY should focus on LIBERTY. But the Libertarian party ONLY focuses on Liberty instead of thinking for themselves. They see Liberty no matter what, they even cross the Constitution they hold dear to make their perspective clear.

I am confused, aren't you the guy that said "Single topic, single opinion? If, as you claim, the Libertarian party focuses on only one topic, liberty, why is that a problem for you? Is the reality that you have an anti freedom agenda, not an anti party one?

I stand by common sense, not a party.

And you define common sense as you never being wrong, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

Do you have the natural inclination to murder? A few pathological people do but the numbers are fairly low in wider society. For the rest of us sensible human beings, we don't need laws to tell us what's right and wrong. For how else could tribes exist? No written law existed yet they naturally took care of one another.

I want to quote the Tao Te Ching, an ancient text from 2500 years ago in China., verse 18 and 19:
18:
When the greatness of the Tao [consciousness] is present, action arises from one’s own heart.
When the greatness of the Tao is absent, action comes from the rules of “kindness and justice.”
If you need rules to be kind and just,
if you act virtuous, this is a sure sign that virtue is absent.
Thus we see the great hypocrisy.
When kinship falls into discord, piety and rites of devotion arise.
When the country falls into chaos,
official loyalists will appear; patriotism is born.

19:
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.

Give up kindness, renounce morality,
And men will rediscover filial piety and love.

Give up ingenuity, renounce profit,
And bandits and thieves will disappear.

These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realise one's true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire

The Tao simply means the subtle essence of the universe and is not important to understanding the point. Laws are external to human beings. Hell, has a law ever stopped you from doing something you are getting ready to do? For me it has only on occasion but it doesn't work all the time and so laws don't even serve the purpose you seem to think they do.

Morality is internal, it has a genetic component as well as cultural. We understand this through cross cultural sociology that examines behavior and identifies patterns that emerge. Shunning murder is among these patterns. So is empathetic behavior and consideration of other humans (which is conspicuously absent from the principles of anarcho-capitalism--"self interest is the only sensible way to go").

So I don't think you are asking a serious question. Instead you are trying to confuse the matter by raising issues that don't matter in the real world. Of course law is helpful but is by no means inherent and only serves as a mild deterrent, not a genuine prohibitive measure. Such measures can only come from within. We have major issues in the United States and the harshest punishments but we still have relatively highly "violent crime" rates compared to similar countries. So harsher laws does not address the issues of violence or murder. Either this is genetic or cultural to America. I firmly believe its cultural stemming from harsh living conditions and a lively gun culture.

Slave owners offered the same reasoning that we should have slaves because if we own something, we take care of them. This was a legitimate argument from the south in the 1850s. One can either romanticize slaves or you can look at how they were treated. If you approach the latter you realize owning people did not mean they were treated as they ought to be, namely, free beings.

It's a serious question in that I'm trying to understand how we can say that murder, or even slavery, is bad if we don't accept that people own themselves. How were the slaves actually free beings if they didn't own themselves in the first place? I don't see the basis for your position here since you've already rejected self-ownership.

 

[westwall]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

This statement has 4 likes?!?!?

Anarchy means, "a state of society without government or law." So all Anarchists hate the Government in general and can't be persuaded otherwise. Government is bad no matter what, therefor, the Constitution is BAD under the Anarchist realm.

And again, he's correct, they can't be "collectivists. They can't collect information. They are set up as anti-Government no matter what information. Information doesn't matter to them.

This kid just exposed a lot about himself in this post.

The only "kid" here is you, junior. Collectivism is the opposite of anarchy. Here's a dictionary definition for you....


1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It has nothing at all to do with "collecting information". Collectivist governments are the OPPOSITE of anarchy. They are maximum governmental power over the individual. In other words dictatorships.

You know, the kind of government you progressives swoon over.

 

[westwall]

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

Do you have the natural inclination to murder? A few pathological people do but the numbers are fairly low in wider society. For the rest of us sensible human beings, we don't need laws to tell us what's right and wrong. For how else could tribes exist? No written law existed yet they naturally took care of one another.

I want to quote the Tao Te Ching, an ancient text from 2500 years ago in China., verse 18 and 19:
18:
When the greatness of the Tao [consciousness] is present, action arises from one’s own heart.
When the greatness of the Tao is absent, action comes from the rules of “kindness and justice.”
If you need rules to be kind and just,
if you act virtuous, this is a sure sign that virtue is absent.
Thus we see the great hypocrisy.
When kinship falls into discord, piety and rites of devotion arise.
When the country falls into chaos,
official loyalists will appear; patriotism is born.

19:
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.

Give up kindness, renounce morality,
And men will rediscover filial piety and love.

Give up ingenuity, renounce profit,
And bandits and thieves will disappear.

These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realise one's true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire

The Tao simply means the subtle essence of the universe and is not important to understanding the point. Laws are external to human beings. Hell, has a law ever stopped you from doing something you are getting ready to do? For me it has only on occasion but it doesn't work all the time and so laws don't even serve the purpose you seem to think they do.

Morality is internal, it has a genetic component as well as cultural. We understand this through cross cultural sociology that examines behavior and identifies patterns that emerge. Shunning murder is among these patterns. So is empathetic behavior and consideration of other humans (which is conspicuously absent from the principles of anarcho-capitalism--"self interest is the only sensible way to go").

So I don't think you are asking a serious question. Instead you are trying to confuse the matter by raising issues that don't matter in the real world. Of course law is helpful but is by no means inherent and only serves as a mild deterrent, not a genuine prohibitive measure. Such measures can only come from within. We have major issues in the United States and the harshest punishments but we still have relatively highly "violent crime" rates compared to similar countries. So harsher laws does not address the issues of violence or murder. Either this is genetic or cultural to America. I firmly believe its cultural stemming from harsh living conditions and a lively gun culture.

Slave owners offered the same reasoning that we should have slaves because if we own something, we take care of them. This was a legitimate argument from the south in the 1850s. One can either romanticize slaves or you can look at how they were treated. If you approach the latter you realize owning people did not mean they were treated as they ought to be, namely, free beings.

It's a serious question in that I'm trying to understand how we can say that murder, or even slavery, is bad if we don't accept that people own themselves. How were the slaves actually free beings if they didn't own themselves in the first place? I don't see the basis for your position here since you've already rejected self-ownership.

Progressives like gnarley and anti party don't believe in personal sovereignty. That is anathema to their belief that the individual exists for the benefit of the State. That way, once you no longer have value to the State, they feel they can kill you without remorse
because that is the "logical" or "common sense" approach to those you don't like.

 

[TGN]

I refuse to take anyone who calls himself an anarchist seriously UNLESS he means that he believes in NO GOVERNMENT WHATEVER.

jUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BUST UP WHATEVER GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS NOW AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING YOU IMAGINE WILL BE BETTER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANARCHIST.

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If one has any order, any government it is NOT in a state of anarchy.

One cannot be an anachro-communist.

The phase makes NO sense.

This thread is about anarchism NOT "anarchy". Look them up in the dictionary and you'll see two very different definitions. And yes, anarchism is collectivist, i.e. anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian communism. And libertarianism was originated by French socialists such as Joseph DeJacque, Elisee Reclus, Sebastien Faure to describe socialism without a centralized authority (i.e. anarchism). DeJacque even had a socialist newsletter called Le Libertaire. IT WAS EVEN IN THE NAME!

 

[westwall]

I refuse to take anyone who calls himself an anarchist seriously UNLESS he means that he believes in NO GOVERNMENT WHATEVER.

jUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BUST UP WHATEVER GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS NOW AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING YOU IMAGINE WILL BE BETTER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANARCHIST.

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If one has any order, any government it is NOT in a state of anarchy.

One cannot be an anachro-communist.

The phase makes NO sense.

This thread is about anarchism NOT "anarchy". Look them up in the dictionary and you'll see two very different definitions. And yes, anarchism is collectivist, i.e. anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian communism. And libertarianism was originated by French socialists such as Joseph DeJacque, Elisee Reclus, Sebastien Faure to describe socialism without a centralized authority (i.e. anarchism). DeJacque even had a socialist newsletter called Le Libertaire. IT WAS EVEN IN THE NAME!

I see you too need to learn how to read a book. Here's the dictionary definition of Anarchism....

an·ar·chism noun \ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\

: a belief that government and laws are not necessary
Full Definition of ANARCHISM

1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Not collectivist, FREE ASSOCIATION.

 

[gnarlylove]

It's a serious question in that I'm trying to understand how we can say that murder, or even slavery, is bad if we don't accept that people own themselves. How were the slaves actually free beings if they didn't own themselves in the first place? I don't see the basis for your position here since you've already rejected self-ownership.

I want to be clear: law does not serve to obviate crime. It deters at best and is ineffective compared to internal principles. These principles are partially genetic and cultural. Why humans should not commit crime is best handled from within. External laws imposed by authority usually serves to undermine that authority, however slightly. Therefore I don't think your charge is valid that external law must exist in order for us to not commit murder. Our genes include a cross-cultural pre-disposition to not murder, this is a sociological fact. Even when we read about tribes who kill their elders, once contexualized, we understand it to be honorable and voluntary. Humans do not need concepts of property in order to not harm one another. We both know territory serves to keep peace as well as wage war.

We are partially determined through genes and partially free to act within that range. Thus freedom is very limited but it can be argued within this determinism, this determined range we have what we mean by free. It's hard to imagine finite choices in an infinite range of freedom (i.e. 0 determinism). If a person is unable to act within this range under their own volition, we call them a slave. The concept of property is an afterthought, a retro-description. In order to be free the slave only need to remove the force acting against their will. They do not also need to develop the concept of ownership in order to proclaim self-determination. Instinctively people wish to pursue their interests and acting within this range is freedom. Being forced to act otherwise is not.

You said something very interesting earlier that I didn't get a chance to respond to. That was you said the right to life derives from property. Did I read that right? Something like "all rights derive from property rights." My question is why do mostly white rich males get most of the property and therefore most of the rights? Because they deserved it? Think again. Because they got to it first? Close but that wasn't true either. Because they were the mightiest? This is very close to the truth. Why does might make right? You might praise Ayn Rand who says the Natives had no right to the land because they had no paper, ie no concept of property. Her stroke of genius or idiocy is she thinks Natives were inferior due to this and therefore enabled us to wipe them out and claim boundless property.

In my opinion this is shameless and backward. All humans are relatively akin. This is not due to some mental fiction of owning the self. It is a genetic fact. I see no reason to invoke self-ownership as meaningful unless property is central to your worldview. But property is an invention. You can speculate property existed at the birth of man but that sounds so far fetched and only convincing to those desperate to believe it. I don't mean to knock your steadfast belief but you should elaborate on self-ownership otherwise it looks like you're grasping at straws from an outsiders view.

 

[oldfart]

In the interests of saving time and duplication, there will be some overlap with this thread. You might want to decide if they should be merged (a bad idea to me) or kept with the new one more about politics and ideology and the older thread more about economics. Just sayin'.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/303835-the-austrian-school-of-economics.html

 

[whitehall]

Then why can't I just kill you and take your liver since you don't own it?

Fair question. I would like to think we can respect one another's right to exist and my liver is a definite part of my existence. But we must acknowledge there is no non-circular justification for not harming another person. Richard Rorty explains this very well:

For liberal ironists, there is no answer to the question "Why not be
cruel?" - no noncircular theoretical backup for the belief that cruelty is
horrible. Nor is there an answer to the question "How do you decide
when to struggle against injustice and when to devote yourself to private
projects of self-creation?" This question strikes liberal ironists as just as
hopeless as the questions "Is it right to deliver n innocents over to be
tortured to save the lives of m x n other innocents? If so, what are the
correct values of nand m?" or the question "When may one favor members
of one's family, or one's community, over other, randomly chosen,
human beings?" Anybody who thinks that there are well-grounded theoretical
answers to this sort of question - algorithms for resolving moral
dilemmas of this sort - is still, in his heart, a theologian or a metaphysician.
He believes in an order beyond time and change which both determines
the point of human existence and establishes a hierarchy of
responsibilities.

Maybe you don't think humans have natural rights and I do not think they are inherent myself. However, bands, communities, tribes, nations simply cannot exist without some level of trust. Game theory speaks of this in unique terms where the barrier of trust is lowered in order to conduct business. This means we can benefit each other by not killing one another. That instead of simply gaining a liver one time I can gain multiple rewards from keeping you alive. Certainly cultural inculcation is important: teaching people that incentives naturally involve the self and others is important, even if altruism is really just a form of self-exultation (which is argued very well by Mark Twain in "What is Man?") though I believe and know in my immediate experience I forgo personal desires at times to serve others because I love them and care about them as I do my own personal self. This seems to be utterly natural human activity and its hard to act as if others do not matter when they don't influence my profit-maximization.

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

There are laws because anarchists seem to think that they can cut through the political bullshit and create a new country by the violent overthrow of the government. Anarchists should thank God for the greatest Document ever created in human existence. It allows them to spout their vile rhetoric without fear of arrest.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fair question. I would like to think we can respect one another's right to exist and my liver is a definite part of my existence. But we must acknowledge there is no non-circular justification for not harming another person. Richard Rorty explains this very well:


Maybe you don't think humans have natural rights and I do not think they are inherent myself. However, bands, communities, tribes, nations simply cannot exist without some level of trust. Game theory speaks of this in unique terms where the barrier of trust is lowered in order to conduct business. This means we can benefit each other by not killing one another. That instead of simply gaining a liver one time I can gain multiple rewards from keeping you alive. Certainly cultural inculcation is important: teaching people that incentives naturally involve the self and others is important, even if altruism is really just a form of self-exultation (which is argued very well by Mark Twain in "What is Man?") though I believe and know in my immediate experience I forgo personal desires at times to serve others because I love them and care about them as I do my own personal self. This seems to be utterly natural human activity and its hard to act as if others do not matter when they don't influence my profit-maximization.

If humans don't own themselves, and there's no good reason as to why we can't just kill each other, then why are there laws against it in the first place?

There are laws because anarchists seem to think that they can cut through the political bullshit and create a new country by the violent overthrow of the government. Anarchists should thank God for the greatest Document ever created in human existence. It allows them to spout their vile rhetoric without fear of arrest.

This is what we call a straw-man. Nobody is advocating any kind of violent overthrow of the government.

 

[oldfart]

While quotes from others can be useful, I don't think that simply posting those quotes by themselves without any of your own thoughts, or telling us to read this book or that book, is entirely conducive to discussion. I'll address your points more fully tomorrow, however, as I'm tired now.

I can understand why a Rothbard disciple confronted with problematic Rothbard quotes would want to deflect and stall for time.