Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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]
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.
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.
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]
Anarchism is against the Constitution and everything our Government and BEING is built on.
I like that you are trying to educate Anarchism vs Nihilism though.
Sadly, you will end up at Nihilism when using Anarchism.
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.
Disciple?
I guess I was stalling, in the sense that I didn't directly reply to all of his points right there on the spot, but it's not hard to understand why as I gave precisely the reason in that post. As I turned around and did reply the very next day, as I said I would, I would say this post is nonsense.
I can understand why a Rothbard disciple confronted with problematic Rothbard quotes would want to deflect and stall for time.
Disciple?
I guess I was stalling, in the sense that I didn't directly reply to all of his points right there on the spot, but it's not hard to understand why as I gave precisely the reason in that post. As I turned around and did reply the very next day, as I said I would, I would say this post is nonsense.
You missed the tongue firmly planted in cheek.
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.
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.
Free or voluntary association would allow people to participate in collective solidarity if they so chose. Going beyond that it has been argued that all societies, even the freest, practice some form of baseline collectivism in order to have social organization of some sort.
And in practice anarchism has had collective practices as well as individual.
"Medical care and medicines are free. Even postage stamps are free. There is no rent. Housing, building repairs, water, gas, electricity-all are supplied gratis, not only to the collectivists but also to the 'individualist.'" The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff.
I'd describe anarchism as a directly democratic society based on popular, de-centralized governance rather than non-governance.
They only get together collectively when an outside threat appears that is dangerous to all. Then after the threat is dealt with they once again revert to concentrating on their own projects.
They only get together collectively when an outside threat appears that is dangerous to all. Then after the threat is dealt with they once again revert to concentrating on their own projects.
Then based on what you are saying, they do act collectively when deemed necessary. They also act collectively to make decisions based on consensus building, too. Maybe you're associating the word collectivism with something involuntary or coercive, which would be a mistake.
"Anarchists thus envision a world based on equality and solidarity, in which human beings would be free to associate with one another to pursue an endless variety of visions, projects, and conceptions of what they find valuable in life." The Democracy Project by David Graeber
Anarchism in action:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw]Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War - YouTube[/ame]
How it's organized:
"The estates of the big pro-Fascist landlords were in many places seized by the peasants. Along with the collectivization of industry and transport there was an attempt to set up the rough beginnings of a workers' government by means of local committees, workers' patrols to replace the old pro-capitalist police forces, workers' militias based on trade-unions, and so forth." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia
The "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War were socialists and received a great deal of their support from Soviet Russia.
They were everything but "anarchists". Anarchists DON'T travel to other countries to fight for other people.
And Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Godwin weren't collectivists? There are other forms of "collectivism" that exist outside the state or corporate system. The above video even mentions that the anarchists rejected state power when it was offered to them. Admit it, you just had a very incomplete understanding of what anarchism really is. At least it is coming across that way.The Spanish Civil War was a battle between TWO COLLECTIVIST ideologies, one was a corporate collectivist model, fascism, the other was a statist collectivist model that was called communism.
I'm going to respond to your last sentence first. You say I'm grasping at straws making the claim that self-ownership is inherent, but, while you've said a lot, you haven't actually responded to that. You haven't explained why people don't own their own bodies, or where their rights to life come from in the absence of self-ownership.
“All realities influence our practice,” he wrote me, “and that influence is their meaning for us. I am accustomed to put questions to my classes in this way: In what respects would the world be different if this alternative or that were true? If I can find nothing that would become different, then the alternative has no sense.”
That is, the rival views mean practically the same thing, and meaning, other than practical, there is for us none....
What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.
You say murder and slavery are obviously bad from a cultural perspective, but why is that? I say it's because people inherently believe that they own themselves, but you've rejected this. You say it's a genetic pre-disposition not to murder, but where's the science on that, and why is there murder if that's the case? Are people who murder genetic mutants?
As for the bold portion of your post, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that murder is bad because it violates a person's property right in their own body. External laws against murder were simply made because of this fact.
I'm going to respond to your last sentence first. You say I'm grasping at straws making the claim that self-ownership is inherent, but, while you've said a lot, you haven't actually responded to that. You haven't explained why people don't own their own bodies, or where their rights to life come from in the absence of self-ownership.
Having read some pragmatism, I have a solution to settle the question why you would assign property as inherent in people. (Do cats own themselves? Bonobos?). I'll just quote and offer a brief application and our question dissolves quite nicely.
So to quickly analyze your proposal, you sad humans walked onto the scene immediate in hand was property, namely themselves. So pragmatism asks, what difference would it make if this were not true? Well, simply using real world examples, I do not need to own something in order to sell it. In fact, people can live whole lives without concepts of property and live rich lives, trading in the market everyday. The only evidence I see for calling my body a property of mine is because I control it. I can hack off an arm and sell it or I can choose to keep it. Other than such relatively nonsensical applications of owning myself, there is not meaning, no practical significance whether I own myself or not. The idea of inalienable rights are not typically derived from the concept of property. The simply just are and joining rights to humans though property is quite an unnecessary step that has no practical value in the real world.All realities influence our practice, he wrote me, and that influence is their meaning for us. I am accustomed to put questions to my classes in this way: In what respects would the world be different if this alternative or that were true? If I can find nothing that would become different, then the alternative has no sense.
That is, the rival views mean practically the same thing, and meaning, other than practical, there is for us none....
What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the others being right.
The only significance comes in when rights can be big or small depending on property. But the crux of your, or rather Rothbards argument, is property is defined this way and once you define property as innate to human beings then and only then do these more or less rights flow. But I've already flat denied this premise. And the reason is that it makes no difference if you use this ideation or any number of other ideations to link humans to rights producing universal basic rights.
Rothbard's view that humans own themselves makes no real world difference, no important distinction so the only reason to accept it is because you want to. That, for me, is no reason at all. You should admire Rothbard's attempts at making sense of the world but you don't need to accept his beliefs. You should want to try to make sense of the world too but don't use concepts that have no practical value except to serve ulterior motives of re-arranging society the way that seems best to Rothbard's narrowed vision of life.
The practical result of viewing humans as deriving rights from property means certain people naturally have more rights than others (born with more property). This must have been the quite appealing to Rothbard trying to design a rich white male dominated society that we already have. Whites are a minority on the planet but own much of the wealth and resources. By virtue of having more property, and wealth/property accumulates in capitalism, so over generations rights also accrue and blot out the minuscule rights of those without property (homeless and debtors--which is the average American). I can see it now: a few individuals owning all the property of the world and therefore have all the rights in the world. What a lovely place! A most terrible place!
You say murder and slavery are obviously bad from a cultural perspective, but why is that? I say it's because people inherently believe that they own themselves, but you've rejected this. You say it's a genetic pre-disposition not to murder, but where's the science on that, and why is there murder if that's the case? Are people who murder genetic mutants?
I cited one book already and if you've ever read anthropology or studied it, sociology etc. you know murder is among the universal crimes (intra-tribe). Additionally I cited a source that designs and even tests a few experiments precisely along the lines you are asking. Your first reply to it was to reject it outright. My suggestion is be skeptical, fine, but be willing to learn.
To your last question of genetic mutants, I mean, really, the questions devolved into trivial jabs. The only response is one you already know: volition.
As for the bold portion of your post, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that murder is bad because it violates a person's property right in their own body. External laws against murder were simply made because of this fact.
This is good to know. So taking away property violates the idea behind property. Property being the concept that an individual (or collective) is in full and maximum determination of the existence of the property. When another individual or collective introduces their determination into said property, that is indeed a violation. But why does that matter? Specifically used in this ideation of property, violation carries no moral weight. It simply is a descriptive fact that is the second individual is violating the concepts in mind by the first. Morality, on the other hand, is prescriptive. Prescription offers why one should not violate another. Why should the second individual care that the first has claimed the property first? That the first thinks he has a right to the property is subjective because the second also views this property as his right.
You say this violates the notion of property, so why does that give one any reason to not violate it? If people don't agree to your idea of property or doesn't care (because "violates" carries no moral, prescriptive component) then you have not offered justification that is non-circular, logical, sensible to all times and all people (i.e. universal) though I think this is the aim of rooting human rights in property.
People steal things, sell them and make money or barter. Leased drilling rights is another way to get round owning something in order to sell it. You don't need a deed to participate in buying/selling. You are just so eager to burst my bubble that you didn't think before you typed.
You say you've read my posts but you must not remember them. Actually, I am anarchist and I've mentioned my stance on government many times but your reasoning is so pathetic as to why pragmatism implies no government I want to become a big government liberal. I am sad to hear you think the government has no use meaning roads, education and water in your tap have no use. Maybe you are an alien and have not figured out what things are called and how they got there. If that's the case, I won't spend my time educating you. Don't pretend to understand pragmatism if you don't. It's ok and no one is better off if you spread misinformation. If you do want to educate yourself, here's a primer on pragmatism: Pragmatism - Lecture I. The Present Dilemma in Philosophy (by William James)
I'm going to respond to your last sentence first. You say I'm grasping at straws making the claim that self-ownership is inherent, but, while you've said a lot, you haven't actually responded to that. You haven't explained why people don't own their own bodies, or where their rights to life come from in the absence of self-ownership.
Having read some pragmatism, I have a solution to settle the question why you would assign property as inherent in people. (Do cats own themselves? Bonobos?). I'll just quote and offer a brief application and our question dissolves quite nicely.
All realities influence our practice, he wrote me, and that influence is their meaning for us. I am accustomed to put questions to my classes in this way: In what respects would the world be different if this alternative or that were true? If I can find nothing that would become different, then the alternative has no sense.
That is, the rival views mean practically the same thing, and meaning, other than practical, there is for us none....
What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the others being right.
So to quickly analyze your proposal, you sad humans walked onto the scene immediate in hand was property, namely themselves. So pragmatism asks, what difference would it make if this were not true? Well, simply using real world examples, I do not need to own something in order to sell it. In fact, people can live whole lives without concepts of property and live rich lives, trading in the market everyday. The only evidence I see for calling my body a property of mine is because I control it. I can hack off an arm and sell it or I can choose to keep it. Other than such relatively nonsensical applications of owning myself, there is not meaning, no practical significance whether I own myself or not. The idea of inalienable rights are not typically derived from the concept of property. The simply just are and joining rights to humans though property is quite an unnecessary step that has no practical value in the real world.
The only significance comes in when rights can be big or small depending on property. But the crux of your, or rather Rothbards argument, is property is defined this way and once you define property as innate to human beings then and only then do these more or less rights flow. But I've already flat denied this premise. And the reason is that it makes no difference if you use this ideation or any number of other ideations to link humans to rights producing universal basic rights.
Rothbard's view that humans own themselves makes no real world difference, no important distinction so the only reason to accept it is because you want to. That, for me, is no reason at all. You should admire Rothbard's attempts at making sense of the world but you don't need to accept his beliefs. You should want to try to make sense of the world too but don't use concepts that have no practical value except to serve ulterior motives of re-arranging society the way that seems best to Rothbard's narrowed vision of life.
The practical result of viewing humans as deriving rights from property means certain people naturally have more rights than others (born with more property). This must have been the quite appealing to Rothbard trying to design a rich white male dominated society that we already have. Whites are a minority on the planet but own much of the wealth and resources. By virtue of having more property, and wealth/property accumulates in capitalism, so over generations rights also accrue and blot out the minuscule rights of those without property (homeless and debtors--which is the average American). I can see it now: a few individuals owning all the property of the world and therefore have all the rights in the world. What a lovely place! A most terrible place!
You say murder and slavery are obviously bad from a cultural perspective, but why is that? I say it's because people inherently believe that they own themselves, but you've rejected this. You say it's a genetic pre-disposition not to murder, but where's the science on that, and why is there murder if that's the case? Are people who murder genetic mutants?
I cited one book already and if you've ever read anthropology or studied it, sociology etc. you know murder is among the universal crimes (intra-tribe). Additionally I cited a source that designs and even tests a few experiments precisely along the lines you are asking. Your first reply to it was to reject it outright. My suggestion is be skeptical, fine, but be willing to learn.
To your last question of genetic mutants, I mean, really, the questions devolved into trivial jabs. The only response is one you already know: volition.
As for the bold portion of your post, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that murder is bad because it violates a person's property right in their own body. External laws against murder were simply made because of this fact.
This is good to know. So taking away property violates the idea behind property. Property being the concept that an individual (or collective) is in full and maximum determination of the existence of the property. When another individual or collective introduces their determination into said property, that is indeed a violation. But why does that matter? Specifically used in this ideation of property, violation carries no moral weight. It simply is a descriptive fact that is the second individual is violating the concepts in mind by the first. Morality, on the other hand, is prescriptive. Prescription offers why one should not violate another. Why should the second individual care that the first has claimed the property first? That the first thinks he has a right to the property is subjective because the second also views this property as his right.
You say this violates the notion of property, so why does that give one any reason to not violate it? If people don't agree to your idea of property or doesn't care (because "violates" carries no moral, prescriptive component) then you have not offered justification that is non-circular, logical, sensible to all times and all people (i.e. universal) though I think this is the aim of rooting human rights in property.
Study capital flow. It accumulates. In economics there are 3 transactions.
1. bartering, good for another good;
2. money for a good;
3. money, for a good, in order to gain more money.
See, the 3rd one has been known since the 1800s. It is precisely the reason corporations have come to dominate private enterprise. They start with capital, they invest it and out pops more money than what they started with. This means those who have the most money will continue to accumulate it. This is how capital works, and capital, we both know, influences governments significantly, even controlling the US government on many levels.
If you want to dismantle governments, you cannot leave these mammoth institutions of capital to continue towering over the people. "Freedom for all" would continue to be hollow.
