Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 05:56:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Libertarian my ass!  (Read 9486 times)
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 11:43:13 AM
Last edit: March 29, 2013, 12:17:15 PM by Rampion
 #1

It's funny how US people take concepts born in Europe to turn them upside-down.

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians" free market capitalists of the likes of Ron Paul, most of the times without even knowing the origins of this word.

Libertarian comes from latin word "libertas" = freedom (libertá in italian; libertad in spanish; liberté in french; etc.)

The term "libertarian" was used for the first time by the free thinkers of the Illustration: at the beginning it was only a metaphysical and philosophic concept opposed to the determinist philosophy. Nothing to do with politics or economics.

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

If you want to understand deeply why anarchism is against capitalism, and why anarchists are for a cooperativist and mutualist types of economy (but against totalitarian communism), please read:

  • God and the State, by Bakunin
  • The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin
  • What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear Wink)
  • Anarcho-syndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker

Even more specifically: the libertarian revolution was made by the workers of the region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938:

  • isolated from the republican state that ruled Spain
  • exchanging goods and services for other goods and services (yes, almost without any money)
  • without police, judges or any institutions
  • and as a side note, without any crimes in 7/8 years (because you know that 99,99% of the crimes are related to private property, don't you?)

All this until they were crushed by the fascist counter-revolution.

You can read a detailed report of how they lived in: Anarchosyndicalism, libertarian communism and the state: the CNT in Zaragoza and Aragón, 1930-1937, by Kelsey Graham. Online you will easily find a PDF of this book and the others mentioned earlier.

These guys were "the libertarians", and they would hang themselves if they'd hear a free market capitalist calling himself a libertarian. Just call him an ultra-liberal, an ultra-capitalist, a free market capitalist or an anti-state capitalist: that'd more precise.

And now, do you want to understand quickly why Anarchists (or libertarians) are AGAINST capitalism? Because they are against any kind of coercive power, and CAPITALISM is coercive by nature. "Free market" is not free at all for an anarchist, because its freedom gives you two choices only:

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

This is why somebody calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist" or a "capitalist libertarian" is a joke. It's a like a "nazi-jew" or a "capitalist free market communist". I mean, it's an OXYMORON, full stop.

1710827776
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710827776

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710827776
Reply with quote  #2

1710827776
Report to moderator
1710827776
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710827776

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710827776
Reply with quote  #2

1710827776
Report to moderator
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710827776
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710827776

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710827776
Reply with quote  #2

1710827776
Report to moderator
1710827776
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710827776

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710827776
Reply with quote  #2

1710827776
Report to moderator
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 12:22:10 PM
 #2

I suppose I should bear in mind that I'm sorta just waking up while reading this, but reading your post makes me think that you've had the cluster fucked teaching and been told all kinds of bullshit when you were young and now you're just discovering that people have different definitions of things and have different beliefs. Yes, people think Libertarianism means something else than what you think and yes, people think Anarchism means different things, they come up with their own archetypes of Anarchism and Libertarianism. This is partly because as well that you have to deal with all sorts of bullshit propaganda regarding certain groups like these so people seek out new names and identities so they won't be automatically grouped in with them. A perfect example would be conservatives, because people in that group have gotten sick of being labelled as women hating religious fanatics they've decided to label themselves more clearly as fiscal conservatives or free market conservatives and so on.

Welcome to the real world Rampion, the more you dig through history and facts the more you'll realise what you're told is all bullshit and you have to find your own answer, for me the free market isn't an adopt or die scenario, it's consent, as long as people consent to all trades out there and deals etc. by their own will then that's a free market to me. To be fair as well the free market thing you've described sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that's cooked up by what I call Imperial loyalists ( yeah I know Tongue but I'm using the dictionary definition which works ) they love to make out that we're all heartless rich people only obsessed with gaining wealth and would leave people out in the street to die and so on, of course as most of us would say here that's a load of crap.

A lot of these people have never heard of charity organisations or foundations which I wholly support lol Tongue.
Vandroiy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1002


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 12:42:40 PM
 #3

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

It's a good thing people start realizing this outcome. I personally would recommend productivity-based population control to prevent B) happening en masse, but the vast majority seems to prefer the starving. Or maybe they don't care, which is a more plausible explanation.



Regarding "libertarian": I call myself that and guess you won't like that. I'm mostly a capitalist liberal in the literal sense, with a major exception against the forming of monopolies. That's long and most people still don't understand what it means. What should I call myself?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, statist, communist or conservative, nor do I fully agree with the mainstream approach to economics that produces gigantic corrupt entities. I'm annoyed myself that "libertarian" seems to be ill-defined. It still seems to be the closest word.
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 12:51:17 PM
 #4

I suppose I should bear in mind that I'm sorta just waking up while reading this, but reading your post makes me think that you've had the cluster fucked teaching and been told all kinds of bullshit when you were young and now you're just discovering that people have different definitions of things and have different beliefs. Yes, people think Libertarianism means something else than what you think and yes, people think Anarchism means different things, they come up with their own archetypes of Anarchism and Libertarianism. This is partly because as well that you have to deal with all sorts of bullshit propaganda regarding certain groups like these so people seek out new names and identities so they won't be automatically grouped in with them. A perfect example would be conservatives, because people in that group have gotten sick of being labelled as women hating religious fanatics they've decided to label themselves more clearly as fiscal conservatives or free market conservatives and so on.

Welcome to the real world Rampion, the more you dig through history and facts the more you'll realise what you're told is all bullshit and you have to find your own answer, for me the free market isn't an adopt or die scenario, it's consent, as long as people consent to all trades out there and deals etc. by their own will then that's a free market to me. To be fair as well the free market thing you've described sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that's cooked up by what I call Imperial loyalists ( yeah I know Tongue but I'm using the dictionary definition which works ) they love to make out that we're all heartless rich people only obsessed with gaining wealth and would leave people out in the street to die and so on, of course as most of us would say here that's a load of crap.

A lot of these people have never heard of charity organisations or foundations which I wholly support lol Tongue.

Nothing of this was taught to me in school. In school I was taught that anarchists are bad people who uses bombs. I self-taught myself reading BOOKS by

a) the first, pre-capitalists liberals, from Rousseau to Humboldt
b) the industrial-capitalists liberals (Adam Smith et all)
c) the anarchists fundational books (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc. etc.)
d) the anarchist economic principles (by Proudhon, Rudolph Rocker, Abad de Santillán, etc. etc.)

The reality is simple: ANARCHISM is anti-capitalist by definition, and "libertarian" was originall meant as a euphemism of ANARCHIST. This is the pure truth. Of course you can think that "words mean different things to different people"... Hey, you can even say that nazism for you means "love-and peace ideology", but that would be a mystification of the original term. Which is what happens when you call "libertarian" a free-market capitalist.

About free market consensus: I personally disagree with your view. I think that in capitalist free market more capital=more power to set your own rules. And free-market players does not start from scratch. One example: who can manipulate bitcoin prices to their own interest - the one who has 1.000.000btc + 100.000.000usd or the small-timers that try to enter the market? Who will be able to pump&dump, etc.? Anyhow, this is not my point: my post was just to point out how the term "libertarian" was used in a "funny" way in the US, and how a lot of US citizens call themselves "anarchists" in a twisted way, without having even read in their life a book by the founders of anarchism.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 12:57:26 PM
 #5

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

It's a good thing people start realizing this outcome. I personally would recommend productivity-based population control to prevent B) happening en masse, but the vast majority seems to prefer the starving. Or maybe they don't care, which is a more plausible explanation.



Regarding "libertarian": I call myself that and guess you won't like that. I'm mostly a capitalist liberal in the literal sense, with a major exception against the forming of monopolies. That's long and most people still don't understand what it means. What should I call myself?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, statist, communist or conservative, nor do I fully agree with the mainstream approach to economics that produces gigantic corrupt entities. I'm annoyed myself that "libertarian" seems to be ill-defined. It still seems to be the closest word.

Well, I wrote my post to get the feedback you just gave me - thanks for that, you understood 100% of what I wrote. Hope I also made you interested in reading some of the books that founded the libertarian philosphy. I recommend Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon for the philosophyc side, and Rudolph Rocker for the economic side.

I think it's important to understand that words and concepts are tight together - and it's important to know the origins of the terms we are using, even if we decide to give them "another meaning".

LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
March 29, 2013, 01:48:16 PM
 #6

Irrelevant points. Libertarianism has meant the "right" version in most of the world, and even generally in Europe, for the past thirty or so years. Many libertarians are anarchists and would dispute that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. Meanwhile, socialists stole the words "liberal" and "progressive" from us a long time ago, but you don't see anyone posting "Liberal my ass!" threads.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 02:00:14 PM
 #7

You seem to have an odd - specifically communist - definition of "Anarchism." Let's see if we can correct that.

Quote
an·ar·chism

noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/ 

 1.   Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
 2.   Anarchists as a political force or movement

Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed, Murray Rothbard defined the market as:
Quote
... a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents.

In contrast, State actions are almost always not voluntary, for instance, taxation. They're going to take the money whether you want to pay them or not. Now, many past anarchists have been anti-market, or anti-property, but that does not mean that anarchy means no market. It only means no government. In fact, the logical conclusion of free-market principles is anarchism. I hope I have helped clear up your misconceptions of Anarcho-capitalism. If you have any further questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 02:29:31 PM
Last edit: March 29, 2013, 02:42:06 PM by Rampion
 #8

Irrelevant points. Libertarianism has meant the "right" version in most of the world, and even generally in Europe, for the past thirty or so years.

That is true only for the US - and that doesn't change that the modern US interpretation of "libertarian" is a mystification of the original term. I would just like people understanding that.


Meanwhile, socialists stole the words "liberal" and "progressive" from us a long time ago, but you don't see anyone posting "Liberal my ass!" threads.

That gives me the chance to deepen my exposition.

What I exposed on the OP are FACTS. More facts:

- anarchism and modern liberalism have a common origin: the pre-capitalist liberalism of the XVI Century (from Russeau to Humboldt)
- in the XIX century modern liberalism (free market capitalism) and anarchism were born, sharing a common origin (pre-capitalist liberalism) but splitting because a totally opposite conception of capitalism. For modern liberalists capitalism is: the natural way; for anarchists capitalism is: the non-natural way.

The US libertarians and the "original" libertarians have only one thing in common: they are both anti-state. But for original anarchists anti-capitalism is as important as anti-state. Otherwise, they would just be ultra-liberals, wouldn't they?

You should know that Anarchism is a left movement because Anarchism founders participated in the First International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen's_Association), and they actively cooperated with communists until Bakunin realized that Trotsky's and Lenin's intentions were totalitarian. In fact, in Bakunin's own words, "the red burocracy is going to be the biggest lie in this century", as he saw Lenin's view as state-based capitalism, where workers were told what to do by super-structures outside their direct control (like modern businesses and enterprises, by the way).

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 02:39:22 PM
 #9

You seem to have an odd - specifically communist - definition of "Anarchism." Let's see if we can correct that.

Quote
an·ar·chism

noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/ 

 1.   Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
 2.   Anarchists as a political force or movement

Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed,

In bold the core of this matter. For Bakunin, Kropotkin and the other anarchism founders, capitalism IS a compulsive force. If you read their fundational works, you will understand that for anarchists, capitalist free-market meant:

- the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death. For anarchists, free-market capitalism was just a form of slavery: "salary slavery"

Anarchists were (and are) AGAINST this as they saw it as freedom-killer.

What I'm saying is that it's kinda funny to call yourself "libertarian" or "anarchist" when you are pro-capitalism. Again: anarcho-capitalist is an OXYMORON. Just call yourself liberal, or anti-state liberal or ultra-liberal: that would be much more appropriate from a philosophic and historical point of view.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
 #10

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

This is true even if the person works only to feed himself. The highest bidder, in this case, is merely himself. As it happens, trade and the market make each participant's life better. A farmer can have better clothes than he can make himself, and a clothes-maker can have better food than he can grow himself.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
coqui33
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 03:02:49 PM
 #11

OP: Semantic masturbation.

Armed Citizens and the Law -- NRA-certified firearms instructor
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 03:18:43 PM
 #12

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

You may think this is unrealistic, utopian, unpractical or anachronic: my point is not to discuss this, as it would take a very long (and interesting) debate, and at the end of the day the fact that an anarchist society is possible have never been proved or refutated empirically*: is pure and simple speculation.

My intention is point out the origins of the term libertarian, and how this term is used in rather a funny way in the US. If in the meantime, if I get only one "capitalist anarchist" to read one of the books of the anarchist thinkers (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, Abad de Santillán, etc.) I will be more than happy.

*this is true apart from very small exceptions, as for the kibutz in Israel or the Aragón (Spain) experience from 1930 to 1938. A very small sample indeed.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 03:25:13 PM
 #13

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  Roll Eyes

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 03:43:04 PM
 #14

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  Roll Eyes

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.

If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists think you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:

1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).

And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production. Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception. Anarchists were born in industrail societies, and their mutualist conception of the economy is tightly linked to industrial society.

collapse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206
Merit: 102


step forward


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
 #15

Quote
region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938

First at all, seems strange that
Quote
without any crimes in 7/8 years
because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

I think the problem is the freedom definition, itself.
Term "liberal",in spanish from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_de_C%C3%A1diz

From Liberal, Liberalism, not opposed to State.

Elacoin-ELC,Betacoin-BET,Neutroncoin-NTRN,Americancoin-AMC,Stronghands-SHND,Craftcoin-CRC,DOGE,BCH,BTC,...,Bitcoin,...(and a lot more)
Linux updated wallets (source code) for: ELC, BET, AMC, NKT, SLING, CRC,...
[if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize=largerlimit]   [I don't think the threshold should ever be 0.  We should always allow at least some free transactions.]
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 04:03:49 PM
 #16

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  Roll Eyes

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.
But it's not - we've already established that you can simply work for only yourself - if you're willing to subsist on what you can produce yourself.

If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists thinks you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:

1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).
If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?

And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production.
If I own the field I work in (not an impossibility under capitalism, I might add) why does my community have to benefit from my production? Would that not be slavery? Slavery to the community? And if I have the ultimate decision on how to organize production, what if I decide to organize production in such a way that it does not benefit the community?

Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception.
I'm quite aware of that. You believe that I should work - and work is it's own reward - and then just give away the production.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:06:23 PM
 #17

Quote
region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938

First at all, seems strange that
Quote
without any crimes in 7/8 years
because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

You can read a detailed description of the facts related to the anarchosyndicalist experience in Aragón during 1930 and 1938 in the book below, written by the English historian Kelsey Graham: http://books.google.es/books?id=WjR8mqM0hmcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You will discover that anarchists in opposition to a) fascists, b) communists and c) spanish republican state created an anarchist "island" in Aragón where economy and society worked flawlessy (and with NO CRIME) until this experience was crushed by the fascist counter-revolution. These men called themselves "libertarians".

But of course text books, wikipedia et al. will tell you that anarchists were bad people who burnt god-fearing christians. Hey: who win writes history.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:17:55 PM
 #18


Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
 #19


Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:23:47 PM
 #20


Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:34:58 PM
 #21

ITT, we discuss the English language and how it's always trying to start shit.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
 #22


Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.

Nope, taking compensation for work is slavery. But he might do it for the joy of it. Work, after all, is it's own reward.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:39:27 PM
 #23

The thing is, capitalism isn't really an ideology as such, it's just a formalization of the way the world works. You work, you create goods, you exchange goods, you have capitalism.

Anarchism, being the lack of an over-arching control, cannot oppose capitalism any more than it can oppose the laws of gravity or, (perhaps more aptly) fluid dynamics. The only way to suppress capitalism is by imposing control from above. Anti-capitalism is antithetical to anarchism.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:41:07 PM
 #24

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  Roll Eyes

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.
But it's not - we've already established that you can simply work for only yourself - if you're willing to subsist on what you can produce yourself.

Yes, you can - but you won't argue that capitalism is not based on consumption of self-production. For most of people, breaking with capitalism and just live on what they produce themselves would mean breaking with society... And anarchism is not an every man for himself, primitivist philosophy, but rather the opposite (again: see Kropotkin's works)


If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?

Anarchosyndicalism (also known by some thinkers as "anarchism without adjectives") is the specific description of work organization in an anarchist society, wich by philosophical and historical definition would be non-capitalist and would have no state. The prefix anarcho- serves the puropouse of separating it from the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories.

In any case, an anarchist system would never forbid trade. Anarchist thinkers consider mutualism/cooperativism as the natural way of organizing society, but by definition they would never forbid private propriety, trade, or even capitalist entities. One of the core points of anarchism is: free association, and this "no-forbid" theory is why even a lot of anarchists think its a plain and simple utopia, because somehow successful systems impose themselves with some sort of coercition.

EXAMPLE: Anarchist society would have no army: thus it couldn't be protected by enemies, thus will never succeed and always be defeated.


Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:42:10 PM
 #25

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
 #26

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

Anarchism is against any type of coercive force, and anarchist theorists pointed capitalism as one of the strongest coercive forces in society in their very first works, which you should read if you sympatize with "libertarians" or "anarchists".

Then you can have your own meaning for anarchism, or for any other word: but sticking to the facts, Anarchism was founded by Bakunit et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement. An anarcho-capitalist is like a nazi-jew.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 04:54:11 PM
 #27

Anarchism was founded by Bakunin et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement.

The first anarchists were anarchosyndicalists. That does not mean that anarchism is anacrchosyndicalism.

So, let me posit a situation, and see how you deal with it:

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 04:54:29 PM
 #28

Discussed already here.

Nice docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ

My views, as I wrote elsewhere:

The term "Socialism" in its original form means: Workers have to be in control of the means of production. That essentially means flat hierarchies, and fully transparent and "fair" businesses. This is no contradiction at all to a free market. That's why much of today's political discussion is based on false dichotomies.

I however don't subscribe to those who want to abolish competition and demand "solidarity". If worker collective A can't get their shit done and produce much crappier shoes than collective B, well then they will eventually be out of business and have to look for something new. You'd need a world-wide planned economy to prevent that, and I'm not for such a thing, even if it's supposedly implemented "democratically". To close the loop to Austrian economics, well the market does not care if the decisions in a business are made at the top by the managers, or crowd-sourced and agreed on by the whole staff.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 04:59:49 PM
 #29


I however don't subscribe to those who want to abolish competition and demand "solidarity". If worker collective A can't get their shit done and produce much crappier shoes than collective B, well then they will eventually be out of business and have to look for something new. You'd need a world-wide planned economy to prevent that, and I'm not for such a thing, even if it's supposedly implemented "democratically". To close the loop to Austrian economics, well the market does not care if the decisions in a business are made at the top by the managers, or crowd-sourced and agreed on by the whole staff.

In fact, if collectives are so much better, they should be able to outshine all the inefficient top-down owned businesses and put them all out of business. Not happening and you can't claim it's all because of fatcat capitalists controlling the economy.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:13:24 PM
 #30

Anarchism was founded by Bakunin et al. in the First International, and it was born as an anti-capitalist movement.

The first anarchists were anarchosyndicalists. That does not mean that anarchism is anacrchosyndicalism.

I strongly disagree. Anarchism is a a) free-association, b) anti-capitalist and c) anti-state philosophy. Anarchism was born opposed to social darwinists who defended the capitalist competitive free market as the "perfect" and "natural way" to organize the economy. The fundational works of anarchism are a reply to XIX century liberals who started to defend that competition in capitalist free market replicated nature and its "fight for survival" (see "The Fight for Existance" by Thomas H. Huxley, which motivated "The Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin), and thus capitalism was the perfect and natural way to organize economy.

As I explained earlier, free market capitalists and anarchist have a commong origin, the pre-capitalist liberals - but the fundamental difference between them was not "state or not state", but the way in which to organize economy.

If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
 #31


If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

What makes you think I haven't?

You avoided answering my question.

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:20:45 PM
 #32


I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Anyone who believes this shit should schedule a road trip and go on a mine tour.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:22:31 PM
 #33

If Europeans had wealth similar to Americans, you would be "capitalist" libertarians as well.  As it stands, you are collectivist libertarians due to centuries of serfdom and overpopulation.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 05:25:47 PM
 #34


I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Well, yes... I had taken that as granted. I was just curious if I had somehow enslaved the tractor manufacturer, or if he had somehow enslaved me.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:25:57 PM
 #35


If you take "anti-capitalist" out from the equation you won't have anarchism - you may have a sort of extreme minarchy, ultra-liberalism, or call it whatever you want: but you will have something else, not anarchism. These are the facts, and I'm sure you will agree with me if you read the works of the anarchist thinkers.

What makes you think I haven't?

You avoided answering my question.

I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

This insitence of stating that anti-capitalism is not inherent to anarchism makes me think you did not read/understand the works of Malatesta, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. If you did, you would have understood that they created their theory as a reaction and in opposition to the capitalists free market theorists.

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:32:08 PM
 #36

Well, perhaps you are confusing things by bringing in "anarchism" then. We could concentrate on "libertarianism" but I have to confess that I'm not that familiar with the origins. I suspect the rise in adoption of the term has more to do with the stealing of the label "liberal" by those who are anything-but than seeking back into the far past. I often see the term "classical liberal" used as a synonym.

I guess an important thing to bear in mind is that the past 100 years or so have seen the rise of the state to overbearing stature. That has skewed the field quite a lot.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:36:19 PM
 #37


I am a farmer, and I own my field. One day, I decide I would like to trade some of my grain for a new tractor. I find someone willing to build me a tractor in exchange for some of my grain. Have I done something wrong? Has the tractor manufacturer?

The tractor maker gives you a tractor because building tractors is its own reward.
The steel maker gives him the steel because working around dangerously hot molten metal is its own reward.
The miner give the ore to the smelter because crawling around in holes in the ground is its own reward.

Anyone who believes this shit should schedule a road trip and go on a mine tour.

Well, traditional anarchists deal in two ways for the "bad jobs" (crawling in holes) that nobody would like to do:

1) Some anarchists, let's say the "purist", say that unpleasant but necessary jobs would be shared by all members of the community, always voluntarily. For example: you would go to mine yourself for a week because it's a service for your community, and you would be happy to do that.
2) Some others say that those works would be associated with a higher reward to the individuals performing this jobs.

Then you have the capitalist way to deal with unpleasant jobs: you will always have someone hungry enough do that job, because crawaling in holes is the only way he has to feed himself

Normally anarchists are for 1), and they explain why this works and why this type of mutual aid is natural to humanity through studies on both animals and pre-private property communities, etc. Of course reading is advised, and if you decide that this is utter bullshit and that type of society is pure utopia, that no human would do something "because its a service for the community", no problem: that was not the point of my post.

Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:39:52 PM
 #38


Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Can you come by and paint my house? You'll find it very rewarding.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
 #39

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.

If you want to bitch about people using libertarian in a meaning other than it's original, perhaps you should look in a mirror, first:

Quote
The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
 #40

Well, perhaps you are confusing things by bringing in "anarchism" then. We could concentrate on "libertarianism" but I have to confess that I'm not that familiar with the origins. I suspect the rise in adoption of the term has more to do with the stealing of the label "liberal" by those who are anything-but than seeking back into the far past. I often see the term "classical liberal" used as a synonym.

I guess an important thing to bear in mind is that the past 100 years or so have seen the rise of the state to overbearing stature. That has skewed the field quite a lot.

I will explain you the origin of the word libertarian: it was used for the first time by Illustration free-thinkers in France, as a philosophic position agains determinism, which was a philosophy that said that everything that happens is related in a sort of cause-effect relationship. It had no economic or political meaning.

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.

wdmw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:46:31 PM
 #41


This insitence of stating that anti-capitalism is not inherent to anarchism makes me think you did not read/understand the works of Malatesta, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. If you did, you would have understood that they created their theory as a reaction and in opposition to the capitalists free market theorists.


It sounds to me like what you should be saying is "The first self-labeled users of the word 'Anarchism' were anti-capitalist".  

That doesn't change the definition of the word 'Anarchy', which means, literally, 'without leader(s)'.

edit: Myrkul beat me to it
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:48:54 PM
 #42

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.


That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

wdmw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:50:21 PM
 #43

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.


That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Think critically here for a second; you are calling an associative economic philosophy of early 'Anarchist's' the definition, while dismissing the actual etymological definition as foolish, stupid reasoning.

Also, National Socialism is 'National' 'Socialism'.  I recommend some Hayek on why it inevitably leads to what you identify as 'Nazi's'.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 05:53:36 PM
 #44

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.

Well, as we've already established that "anarchism" doesn't mean "anarchosyndicalism," using "Libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist" doesn't rule out "radical free market, anti-state capitalist," now, does it?

Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Could you provide the definition you're using? It doesn't seem to be a standard one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 05:54:37 PM
 #45

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.


That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

National Socialism is 'National' 'Socialism'.  I recommend some Hayek on why it inevitably leads to what you identify as 'Nazi's'.

Nazi's are Nazionalsozialists - and racism and intollerance is part of the core of the nazi ideology - full stop.

I also have read plenty of Hayek and Mises, same thing for anarchist theorists and even more important: history books - and this is why I lol when I read about free market capitalists calling themselves libertarians or anarchists.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 06:01:12 PM
 #46

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.

Well, as we've already established that "anarchism" doesn't mean "anarchosyndicalism," using "Libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist" doesn't rule out "radical free market, anti-state capitalist," now, does it?

Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Could you provide the definition you're using? It doesn't seem to be a standard one.

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... And Emma Goldman, Rocker, Malatesta, Stirner, etc. etc.

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard, and its a term that can be used seriously only by someone ignoring the true origins of the term anarchism. I will say more: no one who have read Bakunin and Kropotkin could ever use the word anarcho-capitalism without laughing out loud, even if they are convinced anti-state liberals.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 06:05:27 PM
 #47

Personally, I don't have much issue with drift of language. It happens. Now there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians. The underlying meaning is in support of increased liberties. Of course, I believe that the left-libertarians are misguided in their aims and understanding of liberty but that's a different argument (The left has a long history of using words in diametric opposition to their actual meaning in any case).

libertarian in the US sense seems to be gaining ground in the UK also. I read several sites from there and libertarian is typically used in this manner. This is hardly surprising. In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 06:08:48 PM
 #48


I also have read plenty of Hayek and Mises, same thing for anarchist theorists and even more important: history books - and this is why I lol when I read about free market capitalists calling themselves libertarians or anarchists.

I LOL when I hear people refer to the rear compartment of an automobile as a trunk or boot and the lid at the front as a hood or bonnet. Language lulz.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
wdmw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 06:09:32 PM
 #49


The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... And Emma Goldman, Rocker, Malatesta, Stirner, etc. etc.

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard, and its a term that can be used seriously only by someone ignoring the true origins of the term anarchism. I will say more: no one who have read Bakunin and Kropotkin could ever use the word anarcho-capitalism without laughing out loud, even if they are convinced anti-state liberals.

Trying to re-define the word 'definition' makes it seem like we're being trolled.

From Emma Goldman:

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property: liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."

The bolded is the definition.  The underlined is Emma Goldman's interpretation of its application on society.  Those are different things.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 06:12:15 PM
Last edit: March 29, 2013, 06:56:16 PM by myrkul
 #50

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...
I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?


Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...
Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have two distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 07:00:38 PM
 #51

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...
I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?


Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...
Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have to distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Wink

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 07:19:21 PM
 #52

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Wink

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 07:26:25 PM
 #53

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Wink

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 07:44:19 PM
 #54

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Wink

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.
He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:09:59 PM
 #55

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 08:16:02 PM
 #56

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:21:06 PM
 #57

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:25:16 PM
 #58


Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 08:27:07 PM
 #59


Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:30:15 PM
 #60


Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

Oh, I forgot. Somalia. Of course, what was I thinking?  Tongue

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
 #61


Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 08:43:46 PM
 #62

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.
First, ask yourself who does most of the violence? The really large-scale stuff. Now imagine getting rid of them. Now, all that's left are the small-time guys, petty warlords and the like. One thing: they're seen for exactly what they are: thugs. and they're treated as such.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.
Because it will not be seen as legitimate.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:47:45 PM
 #63


Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Then we could talk literally of the millions upon millions dead upon the mantle of statism.

Statism *is* violence.

Non-statist violence in my life is typified by the occasional minor incident of road rage. That's it.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
 #64

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Statism Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 09:03:47 PM
 #65

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:07:38 PM
 #66

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Statism Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.

In that whole "War is peace" kinda way.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:11:04 PM
 #67

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

Let's explore this.

Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.

Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
 #68

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society.
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:13:13 PM
 #69

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" Wink

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.
He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops.

Well, it is relevant because Molinari was contemporary to Bakunin, and I'm very sure that he would never have even dreamt of conceiving a "capitalist anarchism". In fact I'm sure that he conceived his free market laissez-faire contrapossed to anarchism.

Anyhow, we have been discussing facts. Now I would like to give you my humble opinion about WHY North Americans are not shocked by capitalist libertarians or anarcho-capitalists:

For americans, non-US history has not much relevance. So most of US citizens don't know much about "original" anarchism and his foundation, even though it had an enormous impact on history, and millions of people have died while defending (or fighting against) the anarchist ideals. You give much more relevance to a modern and relatively non-relevant intellectual (Rothbard), whose theory has been quite anecdotical in the history of politics. I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example:

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi, and insisting on etymology makes it even more ridiculous. Words does not mean what they mean only because of their etymology, that would be a logical fallacy. But from the other side I understand that US is founded on both capitalism and private property, and therefore in your short history you never seriously considered anti-capitalist anarchist theories, for you the "original" anarchism is something marginal that has no relevance at all. Therefore, you are not shocked by someone calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist", even if it's as silly as it can get.


Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:16:05 PM
 #70

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society.

In an anarchich society you would have less crimes because 99,99% of crimes are related to private property. That's pure statistics my friends. In an "anarcho-capitalist" (lol lol and lol) society I'm not so sure you will have less street violence - You will still need police, thus you are not looking at an anarchy: your are looking at a minarchy

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 09:30:59 PM
 #71

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.

Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.
Oh, you wanted a personal account? You should have said so. I'm afraid I don't have one for you. However, let me direct you to the tale of Ed and Elaine Brown.

Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.
Demand, in the same manner as taxation? Simply put, If I don't agree to an obligation, there isn't one. Nobody could come up to me, for instance, and say, "You owe me money for living here," without my previously agreeing to that arrangement.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 09:42:50 PM
Last edit: March 30, 2013, 01:15:31 AM by Rampion
 #72

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.


Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" wouldnt be ridiculous.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 09:55:34 PM
 #73

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.


Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.

Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.

Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 10:08:59 PM
 #74

I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 10:11:17 PM
 #75

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.


Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.

Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.

Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. And the ones fighting anarchists where mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain. But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 10:15:16 PM
 #76

I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".


And because a mutualist/cooperativist economy, not based on private property but on mutual aid, has never existed as a serious option in all American history. I would even say that that type of economy is against US foundational principles.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 10:21:01 PM
 #77

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.
State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.

But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.
You might be surprised.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
 #78

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.
State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.


I do not disagree on that.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 10:35:35 PM
 #79

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 29, 2013, 10:41:55 PM
 #80

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 29, 2013, 11:21:21 PM
 #81

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO

Quote
The most powerful and elite leaders in Iceland were the chieftains (sing. goði, pl. goðar). The goðar were not elected to their positions, but rather owned their title. The position was most commonly inherited, but it could also be bought or sold. The office of the goði was called the goðorð. The goðorð was not delimited by strict geographical boundaries. Thus a free man could choose to support any of the goðar of his district. The supporters of the goðar were called Þingmenn ("assembly people"). In exchange for the goði protecting his interests, the Þingmann would provide armed support to his goði during feuds or conflicts. The Þingmenn were also required to attend regional and national assemblies.

Not exactly like, and not exactly unlike, the AnCap concept of protection agencies, or de Molinari's free-market "governments". The main thing differentiating it is that there were a limited number of them. I imagine this drove the price rather high, much like a NYC Taxi medallion.

In AnCap, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone from deciding not to have a protection agency, or even starting their own.

The judges, unfortunately, were also limited in number, and it is this fact that ultimately spelled the downfall of the system - they were all bought out by a foreign power. However, their action was very AnCap in nature:

Quote
Once a court decided a party was guilty, however, it had no executive authority to carry out a sentence. Instead, enforcement of a verdict became the responsibility of the injured party or his family. Penalties often included financial compensation or outlawry.

This would likely be handled by one's insurance, under AnCap. No insurance, of course, and it's back down to you or your family.

In AnCap, nothing is stopping anyone from being a judge - or, indeed, as long as both parties agree, anyone being picked as a judge. From Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
Quote
A boy about fourteen spoke up. "Say! Aren't you Gospodin O'Kelly?"
"Right."
"Why don't you judge it."
Oldest looked relieved. "Will you, Gospodin?"
I hesitated. Sure, I've gone judge at times; who hasn't? But don't hanker for responsibility.
However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, "Will you accept me as your judge?"
He looked surprised. "I have choice in the matter?"
I said patiently, "Of course. Can't expect me to listen if you aren't willing to accept my judging. But
not urging you. Your life, not mine."
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. "My life, did you say?"
"Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge
Brody."
He didn't hesitate. Smiled and said, "I accept you as my judge, sir."
"As you wish." I looked at oldest lad. "What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?"
"Oh, no, Judge, all of us."
"Not your judge yet." I looked around. "Do you all ask me to judge?"
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, "Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge
O'Kelly?"
"What? Oh, sure!"
They had something similar in Ireland, except it was a profession, and not something one can just have thrust upon them like that. If there was no Brehon handy, well, you just waited.

Having multiple, competing courts ensures that the best justice is served... not by giving the rich decision-making power, but by making those with the best decision making abilities rich.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 12:52:09 AM
 #82

In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.

And there is nothing contradictory about these views.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 12:59:35 AM
 #83

In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.

And there is nothing contradictory about these views.

Well, aside from the fact that being a bum and not starving kinda requires you to interfere with others.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 02:29:26 AM
 #84

It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 03:04:48 AM
 #85

It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.

Well, that and leech off of others' productivity.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 03:23:34 AM
 #86

Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 03:31:28 AM
 #87

Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".

I'm not sure I follow.

Perhaps you would like to explain this in greater detail?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jobe7
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


Now they are thinking what to do with me


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 10:31:37 AM
 #88

*gets popcorn*

damn, I missed the start of this one!
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 12:15:13 PM
Last edit: March 30, 2013, 12:32:03 PM by Rampion
 #89

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 12:29:08 PM
Last edit: March 30, 2013, 12:55:18 PM by Rampion
 #90

Myrkul: I thank you for your interesting information about Medieval Iceland. I didn't know much about it, but I have to say that I always superficially thought that Medieval Age is in general a good analogy for a no-state capitalist system (but this is not a positive analogy at all IMO).

I'll take this chance to remark another difference between the anarchism and the US "libertarians" views: in this case, focusing on monopolies

1) For an US libertarian, monopolies are an imperfection of the market, driven by non-market forces: state and lobbies. Without a State there would be no lobbies and the market would adjust itself, as an invisible hand would self-regulate the market and balance competition, reaching an always-fair market that would allow equal opportunities to market players.

2) For an anarchist, monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.

I personally tend to agree with 2), based on my own analysis of both classic works and reality surrounding us.

H@ml3t
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 02:12:54 PM
 #91

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 03:27:49 PM
 #92

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state.

Some definitions:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Common ownership of the means of production.
State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations.
State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it.
Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product.

Sound about right?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 04:00:21 PM
 #93

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state.

Some definitions:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Common ownership of the means of production.
State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations.
State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it.
Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product.

Sound about right?

I'm not confusing anything - I'm just stating the fact that for anarchists private ownership of means of production = monopolies = the richest rules, which is in opposition to US "libertarians" views.

For US libertarians the State is fucking up with the market making it imperfect

For traditional anarchists the modern State is only a tool for capital to grow and concentrate, thus is a product of capitalism itself

As I mentioned before, Bakunin even accused lenin's interpretation of communism of being just a state based form of capitalism

Please understand that the core of anarchism has never been "no state" - the core is the liberation of the individuals. For an anarchist, if you have to accept the wage offered by someone wealthier than you, you are not free. Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work. Not the state, not your boss: YOU. If you do not, you won't be free. As I explained earlier, anarchism was born as an answer to the advance of capitalist free market theories, as communism did in parallel when The Capital was written by Karl Marx.


herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 04:07:54 PM
 #94

now if we can also get rid of the false dichotomy public vs private, we're almost there.  Wink

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 04:12:49 PM
 #95

2) For an [anarchosyndicalist], monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.

Well, let's look at some of the ways monopolies gain power, shall we?

As an example, we'll take Microsoft. Arguably, this is the best example of a monopoly since Standard Oil (which we'll get to in a bit).

How did they do it?
They cut a deal with computer manufacturers to include their operating system on their computers.

What was the result?
A near monopoly - over 90% market share, at peak (better than Standard Oil, actually). Their major competitors in the PC OS market gave up.

How did the market react?
Apple stepped up their game, and made a better product, marketed to the high-end consumer. Linux stepped in to become the major competitor for the low-end consumer. Firefox outcompeted IE by providing better stability, and extensibility. Chrome focused on speed, as well as extensibility.

What was the result?
Well, seeing as I'm currently writing this on Firefox, on a Linux-run laptop, you tell me. Microsoft has some pretty tough competition, and they've really had to work to keep their market share. Even games won't save them, since a lot of companies are putting out Mac and Linux ports, and they were a late entry into the console market - where they're doing pretty good, having learned the lessons Windows had to teach them. Their phone offering is still pretty crappy, though. (don't get me started on the Zune)

Our next example, is Standard Oil.

What did they do?
Ruthlessly bought out competition, innovated around problems (when the rail lines started charging too much, he built pipes), and generally outcompeted all the other oil companies.

What was the result?
Again, a near monopoly. At the peak, Standard oil had 88% of the (oil refinery) market. No mean feat, even in those days. In addition, they drove the price of refined oil down from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. You'll forgive me if I don't see a problem with that.

How did the market react?
By 1911, their share of the oil refining business had been reduced to 64%, by increased competition. Whenever Standard Oil hesitated in taking an action into a new field, competitors sprang up in the new area, as was the case with discovery of the inferior grade Lima oil which would require new processing techniques.

What was the result?
After the anti-trust suit, the company was split up, into several different oil companies, most of which are still around today. Tarrifs and patents protect these companies from foreign and domestic competition. Arguably, this is the best outcome for Standard, if not for the consumers.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 04:20:43 PM
 #96

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
 #97

Thank you Myrkul - I will reply to your comments later on. Please allow me to throw my personal opinion on why capitalism have been approach so differently in Europe and the US:

When Proudhon analyzed private property in the XIX Century (What is the private property?) he concluded that wealth have been concentrated in the same few hands for centuries. He demonstrated empirically that hundreds of years ago, private property of means of production was established by force, and since then nothing changed much. Obviously this gave arguments to the prolific anarchist terrorism we have had in Europe, because anarchists thought that if private property was established by force, it could be possible to revert this situation by force only.

This lead to a time where the majority of European population was anti-capitalist, but it was crushed by the pro-capitalist minority, which was wealthier and thus more powerful.

In the US the majority of population have never been anti-capitalist: just a few generations ago you started from scratch, and you have had a wide spread of wealth since then. As I said earlier, we could say that US is founded on private property, which is quite a different situation compared to Europe.

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 05:02:17 PM
 #98

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

Yes, I'd say that the history of how private property was established definitely color the respective views. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, private property was established by conquest and land grant - as you said, by force. Here in the states, while conquest was still used, it was to a much lesser extent, and rather than feudal land grants, most private land was gained through homesteading. We never had the serfs and nobles dynamic which is still fucking with Europeans' heads.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 05:46:01 PM
 #99

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 05:54:12 PM
 #100

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 05:57:51 PM
 #101

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view.

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 06:07:21 PM
 #102

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

About being a capitalist: when working at a factory, deciding how to organize the work (how many hours, what to do with production, etc.) and owning the factory is very different, both from a philosophical and a practical point of view.
Ah. And do you think that that factory was magically granted to the owner? Perhaps some king ordered the peasants to build it, and then gifted the finished product to him? No, he worked his way up to being able to purchase a factory.

About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 06:11:11 PM
 #103

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative.

Well, I've been trying to explain it in a very prolific way. I will try to make it very simple:

If you don't want to starve, you need tomake money

Make money = accumulate capital

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules)

Now I will recommend you to read "The Capital", by Karl Marx, where he explains why more capital = more power in thousands of pages. I assume you did not read it, or you would understand "our definition" of capitalism. Then you can take a shit on it, but I'm afraid that even Wikipedia will agree that the modern definition of capitalism was set by Marx in his work.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
 #104

If you don't want to starve, you need tomake money

Make money = accumulate capital

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules)

OK, this is something I can work with. Let's simplify and clarify it a bit more.

Quote
If you don't want to starve, you need to accumulate capital.

More capital = more power (you are able to set the rules as to what people do with your capital)

Better. I don't think even Marx would disagree so far.

Now, what is capital? It's not just money. As I see it, there are three broad categories: time, matter, and space, with money being a convenient way of exchanging, and quantifying the value of, units of capital. As such, money is not capital, but rather, an abstraction of capital.

Now, that in order to avoid starvation you need to accumulate capital is a patently obvious fact of nature. Your body needs additional fuel to continue functioning. As it happens, there are numerous ways to go about doing this. Everybody has a rather large (but indeterminate) stock of at least one type of capital: time. It's this capital that we trade for all other capital, either directly, or indirectly. The best part is, it's granted to us more or less equally. We all also have been granted a limited amount of matter. This matter is a bit of a mixed blessing, as while it allows us to accumulate other matter, as well as space, it requires additional matter, lest we run out of time. Likewise, this matter has been granted more or less equally to all.

So, we all have a limited, but indeterminate amount of time, and we all have more or less the same amount of matter, at least to start. Some of us have been lucky, and we were granted additional matter, or perhaps space, or perhaps a large amount of abstract capital. One of the most important facts to remember about capitalism, however, is that poorly managed capital goes away. One could have a fortune in abstract capital, and massive amounts of space and matter, but if one does not apply ones' self to the proper "care and feeding" of this capital, one will eventually eat through it - quite literally, in many cases.

So we could change the first statement to read:
Quote
If you don't want to starve, you need to wisely trade time for material capital.

I'm still fairly certain Marx would agree.

Another thing to remember is that you don't get to set the rules on what other people do with their capital. This includes their time. If someone is working at my factory, it is because it is more profitable for them to trade their time to me for abstract capital - which they can then use to trade for the matter to keep their matter going - than it would be for them to expend that time directly producing the matter to keep their matter going. If it were not, that's what they would be doing. So, greedy capitalist that I am, I want to keep them working in my factory. To do so, I not only have to compete with their directly expending the time to produce their own food, but also other workplaces which would like to buy their time. If they are particularly good at what they do, they might be able to get quite good rates for that time, and if I don't give them enough, they will most certainly go elsewhere. Thus, by working for me, they get a better life than they could get sustenance farming, and at least as good a life as they could get anywhere else.

At least, under pure, non-state, capitalism. Adding in the force of the state allows me to pay politicians to pass laws which limit the ability of my competitors to compete, restrict the number of competitors, and prevent my employees from striking out on their own.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 08:59:54 PM
 #105



About "your arm is yours" example: I could argue that yes, your arm is yours even if it's someone else who tells you what you have to produce with it - and if you don't agree, you starve. So, when the tax man comes to your door, you can still tell him to fuck off - thus you are free, because you control what you ultimately do, which is the ultimate meaning of being free

Dont you see the logical fallacy in this argument?

I do. I've highlighted it for you. A factory owner is not the only consumer of labor - even in a relatively small area. If you don't agree, work elsewhere, or go into business for your self, and produce whatever you want. If people want it, you may even end up with a factory of your own. Read up on the history of Apple, (and Microsoft, come to that) to see what I mean.

I can grant you that, but:

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 09:08:50 PM
 #106

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?
Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?
Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.
I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 09:32:36 PM
 #107

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?
Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?
Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US?

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.
I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.

So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism?

Anyhow: I think we moved way off topic my friend.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 30, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
 #108

You do know that you have much more choices than 90% of the world population - do you?
Perhaps. But there's always the direct trade of time for food - AKA farming. Though this is usually not efficient enough to keep a large population from starving. Thus, it's more profitable to work in the factory, and buy your food. That's why they do that.

You do know that the wealth of US Apple employees is directly proportional to the lack of wealth of Foxconn's workers - am I right?
Foxconn employees have better working conditions, better sanitation, and better quality of life than the average Chinese person - as evinced by their lower suicide rates than China as a whole. So, you're not right. The wealth of US apple employees - as compared to the American average - is directly proportional to the wealth of Foxconn employees - as compared to the Chinese average.

Are you telling me that Apple is using Foxconn because they are better than Americans doing what they do, that cheap labor is out of the equation, and that in fact Apple is actively working in order to raise the wealth of Foxconn's employees? Would they work with Foxconn if workers wages were equal in China and in the US?
Of course not. They're using Foxconn because it's cheaper than manufacturing it in America. That's the best thing about capitalism. As Adam Smith put it,
Quote
Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
The improvement of the Foxconn worker's quality of life over that of the average Chinese is merely a side-effect of Apple's seeking the best prices for it's manufacturing. But it's an entirely predictable side-effect, for the reasons I explained above.

Then we can argue about WHY - somebody could say that the inequality we are talking about is a product of capitalism itself, others would say that this inequality is mirroring the inequality in nature and that there's nothing wrong in it - and there we would be having the same debate left and right have had for a few dozens decades.
I would point to the nature of China as opposed to the nature of the US. State communism has always been ruinous to individual wealth - unless you're a high-ranking party member.
So Apple is not there because of cheap labour, but as a service to the poor Chinese ruined by state communism?
Nope, just there for the cheap labor. Of course, the cheap labor is available due to the impoverishing of the people by the Chinese State.

And yes, we've wandered a bit afield. But it's your thread, and if you're willing, I'd like to continue showing you how American Libertarianism is just as much about personal freedom as is your traditional European anarchism.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 30, 2013, 11:50:44 PM
 #109

I think it helps to not think of the worker as beholden to the big, evil, fat-cat factory owner, dependent on the largesse of said owner to provide rags and gruel for his family and rather as a free agent, entering a voluntary contract to exchange labor for payment at a mutually agreed rate.

Of course, if the voluntary contract is not there, there is an issue. If the worker is unable to acquire capital, be it money, land or factory of their own through overriding restrictions, be it serfdom, legislation, taxation or whatever, that is an issue. But that is typically an issue with the political system in place, not with capitalism in and of itself.

I think the issue here is that there are terms which have a prima facie meaning, "anarchism" and "capitalism" and Rampion is attempting, to attach additional prejudicial, and in the case of "capitalism", pejorative meanings based on the writings of people with an agenda.

Now, personally, I'm not a fan of the word "capitalism" in any case but this distortion of the meaning of words by the left grows tiresome.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
March 31, 2013, 12:09:24 AM
 #110

But that is typically an issue with the political system in place

yup, often ignored.

Good article:
The Invention of Capitalism: How a Self-Sufficient Peasantry was Whipped Into Industrial Wage Slaves

Again, control of land. No self-sufficiency for the plebs. The word "Poacher" has negative connotations until today.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2013, 12:18:54 AM
 #111

But that is typically an issue with the political system in place

yup, often ignored.

Good article:
The Invention of Capitalism: How a Self-Sufficient Peasantry was Whipped Into Industrial Wage Slaves

Again, control of land. No self-sufficiency for the plebs. The word "Poacher" has negative connotations until today.

State Capitalism: in the end, just as bad as State Communism. I never denied that.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MonadTran
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 31, 2013, 05:05:32 AM
 #112

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

Anarchism, by definition, is "without a ruler". A ruler is someone who forces his will onto other people.

You are free to be against capitalist free market, I am free to be for capitalist free market, my employer is free to be for capitalist free market too.

Now, if I am for capitalist free market, and my employer is for capitalist free market, we don't frickin' need to ask your permission to start our tiny little capitalist enterprise. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it, but if you try to impose your likes and dislikes on us against our will, you are imposing yourself as a ruler over us. Expect resistance.
Jocky
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
April 01, 2013, 08:28:54 PM
 #113

To be honest, I never listsen when people use the term libertarian. Yesterday it was a lowlife that doesn't wanna pay tax, today it's Bitcoiners and tomorrow their muslims. Just say what you have to say and leave the names for namecoin users.

.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 01, 2013, 08:30:49 PM
 #114

To be honest, I never listsen when people use the term libertarian. Yesterday it was a lowlife that doesn't wanna pay tax, today it's Bitcoiners and tomorrow their muslims. Just say what you have to say and leave the names for namecoin users.
I don't want to pay taxes. Does that make me a lowlife, or was this a lowlife who also did not want to pay taxes?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jackofspades
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0



View Profile
April 02, 2013, 05:27:21 AM
 #115

Great Idea for a thread! Im sure there are a ton of Libertarians on here
I am a proud Libertarian and I have heard that the average BTC user is as well.

I have some friends IRL (some familiar with BTC some not) who whether they consider
themselves libertarians or not, definitely feel the same way on many topics.

Interesting history from the original poster as well.

Shout out to all libertarians!!!
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 02, 2013, 07:15:54 AM
 #116

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

Anarchism, by definition, is "without a ruler". A ruler is someone who forces his will onto other people.

You are free to be against capitalist free market, I am free to be for capitalist free market, my employer is free to be for capitalist free market too.

Now, if I am for capitalist free market, and my employer is for capitalist free market, we don't frickin' need to ask your permission to start our tiny little capitalist enterprise. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it, but if you try to impose your likes and dislikes on us against our will, you are imposing yourself as a ruler over us. Expect resistance.

Of course. And nobody frickin' needs to ask your permission to elect a ruler for them, don't they? The crucial point is not forcing each other.

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.

That's the very simple explanation. If you want the long one, I can recommend you some of the works that set the basis of anarchism, both in a political and economical sense.


Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
April 02, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
 #117

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.


See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 02, 2013, 10:46:58 AM
Last edit: April 02, 2013, 02:31:54 PM by Rampion
 #118

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.


See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler. And you are also free to to move to a wild and uncivilized area (plenty of islands in the world), where no tax-man will ever reach you. Again, your are free to be your own ruler.

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules de facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it? Same logic for the gov: you are free to present yourself to any publicly elected position and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it?

Edit: changed some working mistake

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
April 02, 2013, 02:17:54 PM
 #119

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.


See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler. And you are also free to to move to a wild and uncivilized area (plenty of islands in the world), where no tax-man will ever reach you. Again, your are free to be your own ruler.

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules the facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it? Same logic for the gov: you are free to present yourself to to any publicly elected position and set your own rules, but what if you are interested in it?


There's the clue: "Government" -> "Govern"

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 02, 2013, 03:19:26 PM
 #120

Would you consider this as valid logic? I bet not. Well, money rules de facto - the richest set the rules.

Here's the crucial question: For whom do the richest set the rules?

Another question: Absent the force of the State, how does one become rich?

One more: Absent the force of the State, how does one stay rich?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nexus6
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 128
Merit: 100


In Cryptography I Trust


View Profile WWW
April 02, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
 #121

Documentary:

Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)

Considered a jewel amongst historians and rebel hearts, this documentary made in 1997 about the 1936 Spanish Revolution blends historical accounts of the development of the anarchist movement with first-hand testimonies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

TeeBone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 502
Merit: 251


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:00:40 AM
 #122

LoL at the OP getting all hung up over a word. As if anarchism never existed in any form prior to the 19th century.

i dont get caught up on labels, words get flipped left and right over the years. It's like how conservatives in US were the most anti-war political group 70 yrs ago, but "conservatives" today have never met a war they didnt like.

Personally, when im asked, hey whats your political orientation ?
-Leave me alone. Dont want your services.

What economic system do you prefer ?
-Dont attack me, and i promise i wont attack you.

Easy enough..
MonadTran
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 02:04:59 AM
 #123

This does not change the fact that in the current capitalism system, money rules. And as you say, anarchists are against rulers.


See, there's the problem, money doesn't literally rule. Basing political ideologies off of idioms is not a useful practice. It's like trying to stop someone from wearing a loud shirt by invoking noise abatement laws.

Someone could argue that government doesn't literally rule, as it's people who freely choose to elect their government, thus being their own ruler.

Oh, OK. If some people freely choose to elect their government, they are not being ruled, that's right. Just have to make a clear distinction between some people and all people here.

money rules de facto - the richest set the rules. You are free to work to become richer and set your own rules, but what if you are not interested in it?

Money is a thing. It has no will, and, therefore, cannot impose its will onto other people. Those complaining about money, are actually complaining about other people:
1. They'd like to get some stuff from other people.
2. They are not willing to give anything in return.
3. They cannot ask nicely enough.
4. They don't get any stuff, so they complain to the powerful - hey, guys, get that stuff from somebody and give it to me!

There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 07:21:24 PM
 #124


There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

I think you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

Anarchist theory (or anarcho-syndycalist theory, as my friend myrkul would say) has very deep roots in the economical analysis, as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon believed that a man's freedom (or lack of freedom) is profoundly related to his relationship with work, and therefore related to how economy is structured.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 07:25:17 PM
 #125


There may be some exceptions. Like, people who really, genuinely believe that there should be no private property, and all private property is theft. If you are such a person, you can advertise it here, I am sure a few people wouldn't mind to take some of the stuff you are using, and maybe have a party in the house you live in

I think you are making an unfortunate but common mistake. Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.
And if I run a business out of my garage, does it cease being my personal property?

Anarchist theory (or anarcho-syndycalist theory, as my friend myrkul would say) has very deep roots in the economical analysis, as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon believed that a man's freedom (or lack of freedom) is profoundly related to his relationship with work, and therefore related to how economy is structured.
Well, working for ones' self beats working for someone else, but we can't all hack the risk that entrepreneurship entails.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MonadTran
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 11:35:23 PM
 #126

Anti-capitalist thinkers (anarchists, communists, etc.) do not discuss that your house belongs to you. Your house, your clothing, your daughter's toys, your furniture... were never discussed from a Marxist point of view. These are considered personal property, which is somewhat related to the "natural rights" every human has according to Rousseau's theory... When different movements that embraced Marx economical analysis (among which anarchists) speak about the abolition of the private property, they are referring to productive property or means of production.

The distinction between "personal property" and "productive property" is very vague in today's world.
Say, I could have a guitar in my personal property, but once I start playing in a restaurant in exchange for free drinks, it no longer belongs to me, and anyone can take it.
Or, I own a house and go to work every day, but one day, I get ill, and work from home, from my personal laptop. Now, suddenly, my personal laptop becomes a collective property, and anybody has the right to come and work in my house.

What's more, I don't see how, and in what quantities, the means of production would be created, in such a non-capitalist world. Who would have an incentive to create the means of production for the collective? Suppose somebody would want to do that, just to help the collective, how would you make sure there is no over-production of means of production?

Everything has its costs. If super-powerful 1024-core workstations were given away for free, I would use one for work without hesitation, 'cause it's soo cool, and fast. But if I am cited the price of 1000 bitcoins for that workstation - well, maybe I don't need it that much? Maybe I should be fine with a 20-bitcoin workstation, with fewer cores? That is a central argument in Austrian theory, AFAIK. When any kind of stuff is free, means of production or no means of production, you have no means of knowing how hard it is to produce, so you tend to over-consume. Maybe under-consume, if you prefer doing things on your own, without using the modern tools.
Aristotle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 04:03:29 PM
 #127

Well, most of these arguments are basically semantics. But, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and anarchy is a society without hierarchy. So yeah, I'd agree that they aren't compatible using these definitions.

On the other hand, there's the anarcho-capitalists, who only see government power as bad, and corporate power as ok.

Personally, if I had to pick one of these ideal societies, I'd probably pick libertarian socialism. Though, one thing I don't like about liberalism/libertarianism is that they assume "god given rights," and idealize the "natural state of man." Nature is all about power, it's ruthless, and "private property" is only what you can physically defend.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 04:38:14 PM
 #128

Well, most of these arguments are basically semantics. But, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, and anarchy is a society without hierarchy. So yeah, I'd agree that they aren't compatible using these definitions.
Anarchism is society without rulers. Even in Anarcho-syndicalism, there would be leaders. The core idea is that anyone who follows, does so of their own volition.

On the other hand, there's the anarcho-capitalists, who only see government power as bad, and corporate power as ok.
It's not quite that simple. "Corporations" are a creation of the government, and wouldn't exist without it. A better simplification would be: "Government power bad, economic power OK."

Personally, if I had to pick one of these ideal societies, I'd probably pick libertarian socialism. Though, one thing I don't like about liberalism/libertarianism is that they assume "god given rights," and idealize the "natural state of man." Nature is all about power, it's ruthless, and "private property" is only what you can physically defend.
That's one perspective, but another is that rights are the result of an agreement between two people. You get those rights that you grant others. If you grant others the right to life by not trying to kill them, you, in turn, have that right. If you refuse to acknowledge it's validity for others, you discard that right for yourself.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
mai77
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 05:56:21 PM
 #129


If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that.


I would not, see: http://www.picturehost.eu/uploads/f95db2c1eda17ce22a37fd1f695c6121_swas%20hit.jpg

it's quite real.  Undecided
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 06:24:32 PM
 #130

It's funny how US people take concepts born in Europe to turn them upside-down.

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians" free market capitalists of the likes of Ron Paul, most of the times without even knowing the origins of this word.

Libertarian comes from latin word "libertas" = freedom (libertá in italian; libertad in spanish; liberté in french; etc.)

The term "libertarian" was used for the first time by the free thinkers of the Illustration: at the beginning it was only a metaphysical and philosophic concept opposed to the determinist philosophy. Nothing to do with politics or economics.

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

If you want to understand deeply why anarchism is against capitalism, and why anarchists are for a cooperativist and mutualist types of economy (but against totalitarian communism), please read:

  • God and the State, by Bakunin
  • The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin
  • What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear Wink)
  • Anarcho-syndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker

Even more specifically: the libertarian revolution was made by the workers of the region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938:

  • isolated from the republican state that ruled Spain
  • exchanging goods and services for other goods and services (yes, almost without any money)
  • without police, judges or any institutions
  • and as a side note, without any crimes in 7/8 years (because you know that 99,99% of the crimes are related to private property, don't you?)

All this until they were crushed by the fascist counter-revolution.

You can read a detailed report of how they lived in: Anarchosyndicalism, libertarian communism and the state: the CNT in Zaragoza and Aragón, 1930-1937, by Kelsey Graham. Online you will easily find a PDF of this book and the others mentioned earlier.

These guys were "the libertarians", and they would hang themselves if they'd hear a free market capitalist calling himself a libertarian. Just call him an ultra-liberal, an ultra-capitalist, a free market capitalist or an anti-state capitalist: that'd more precise.

And now, do you want to understand quickly why Anarchists (or libertarians) are AGAINST capitalism? Because they are against any kind of coercive power, and CAPITALISM is coercive by nature. "Free market" is not free at all for an anarchist, because its freedom gives you two choices only:

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

This is why somebody calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist" or a "capitalist libertarian" is a joke. It's a like a "nazi-jew" or a "capitalist free market communist". I mean, it's an OXYMORON, full stop.

Anarchism isn't specifically against the freemarket but it's safe to say that anarchism is the root of libertarianism.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 06:57:14 PM
 #131

The anarchism commonly referred to here is anarchism of government, not anarchism of economy.  AFAIK (someone point me in the right direction if I'm wrong), there are many forms of economy when paired to anarchism, but the only one which seems to work without government intervention is capitalism, 100% free market.  I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.  Communism requires a strong tie to the nation and an unnatural willingness to work for the good of all mankind, essentially, being a cog in a machine, but this seems to be the seedling which begets a large national government.  In other words, communism = sheeple, and sheeple love big government to make all decisions while they toil away.  The smallest government will always become the largest.  There's no way to store one's wealth; you could work a lot, or you could work a little, but the work you put in isn't always shown.  Plus, having to distribute your work is a pain to part with, knowing the people it will go to may or may not be working.  It works great if everyone's on board, but there's no backlash if you're not.  Capitalism, OTOH, allows you to store your work and save it for later; if you stop working, it's because you did the work required to do so.  If somebody says they don't want to chip in, they shouldn't be rewarded with socialism; instead, they'd rely on family, and it then becomes a private problem, AS IT SHOULD BE A PRIVATE PROBLEM.  Nothing against those who legitimately can't work, but the individual should not be a public matter.  Capitalism in itself has no room for socialism; the moment such a system was introduced, capitalism ceased to exist in its natural form.

However, the big but:  Neither of these systems know what to do when work becomes automated.  Curious; if corporatism wasn't a thing, and big government was gone, where does that leave machinery?  To some extent, it makes our jobs easier.  To the greatest extent, it eliminates the need for us to work.  I think of slave labor back in the 1800's; except now, the slave is hyper-efficient, runs on electricity, can't rebel, and has no emotion.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 07:10:20 PM
 #132

Neither of these systems know what to do when work becomes automated.
No, they both know what to do.

Capitalism:


Communism:


Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated. Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 07:15:06 PM
 #133

Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated. Wink

I'd love for this to be the case Grin  I'm just curious how it could work.  Would either forms of economy cease to be?  I'd imagine, in the case of capitalism, someone would attempt to grab a hold of the machines, but upon realizing nobody has any money because nobody is working, he would not be able to profit.

I'm only reminded of the RBE at this point.  Tongue

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 07:25:19 PM
 #134

Both systems work equally well, when everything is automated. Wink

I'd love for this to be the case Grin  I'm just curious how it could work.  Would either forms of economy cease to be?  I'd imagine, in the case of capitalism, someone would attempt to grab a hold of the machines, but upon realizing nobody has any money because nobody is working, he would not be able to profit.

I'm only reminded of the RBE at this point.  Tongue

Yeah, basically. If every human need is satisfied automatically, all that's left are the wants. These could be taken care of capitalism style, people supplying wants in exchange for money to buy their wants (or direct tit-for-tat), or communism style, people supplying wants because they want to. To me, capitalism seems like a better self-correcting method to ensure the connection of people who want things with people who want to supply those things, but not everyone agrees.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ArmoredDragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 07:27:38 PM
 #135

Communism was designed from the ground up to ultimately have zero dependence upon government, and in fact believed that the government would eventually just fade away. That doesn't work in reality though.

Communism relies upon people just working unquestionably for "the greater good". The modern US is actually a good example of why communism couldn't ever work. Right now just about every American wants to be a lawyer, doctor, physicist, etc. Trouble is, you still need plumbers, janitors, pig farmers, and garbage men. These aren't glorious jobs, but SOMEBODY has to do them. We have all manner of people with massive amounts of student debt yet no prospects for employment for this exact reason. It's common among them to blame the wealthy because they don't understand that nobody is going to pay you to do something that there is no need for you to do. But anyways, without a job they are stuck with two choices: the dole system, or go work for minimum wage as a waiter or something similar. In the end, they do fill a demand, just not the demand that they had in mind, but they'd probably find that they'd earn more as say a garbage man (I know one who makes $50,000 a year) but they tell themselves that they are above that kind of work, instead opting for $24,000 a year busing tables.

Communism just assumes that somebody will want to fill the void according to their ability, but as I described above, it doesn't work out that way. Each time a group tries to start a commune, they eventually realize this, and it invariably comes down to a central group telling each individual person what job they will have, how many hours they will work, quotas, etc. Invariably it turns into slavery. Keep in mind that large governments aren't the only ones who have tried to establish communism. Even within the US and Europe, it was rather common for a group of people to get this idea that they'll all give up all of their material possessions, money, etc to the group, and then they all form a commune. Even wealthy people did this. However they all eventually met the same fate for this exact reason. Groups like the Icarians for example had such hard times with productivity that they would forbid talking of any kind while working, as well as other strict rules and working conditions. And the workers literally worked for free in spite of these miserable jobs.

Socialism in my opinion isn't much better as it tries to find a middle ground between these. Socialism has a half-capitalist system with strict government controls, meanwhile it encourages the use of dole systems to try to make sure everybody is equal. You inevitably end up with those who can choose to not work at all, and other than being frowned upon, there is no repercussion against it. Somebody somewhere has to pay for it though, resources are scarce and can't be made out of thin air.
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 07:32:37 PM
 #136

I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 07:34:30 PM
 #137


except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

I suppose I should watch this movie before making any more assertions Tongue

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 07:38:04 PM
 #138

Even here in the US, communism was tried and eventually abandoned:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).

OK, how about Ireland, then? (though Iceland is an excellent example)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ArmoredDragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 07:49:09 PM
 #139

Even here in the US, communism was tried and eventually abandoned:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard130.html

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).

OK, how about Ireland, then? (though Iceland is an excellent example)

Communism was tried multiple times in the US actually. Go read up on groups such as the Icarians. One of their settlements even had an entire town constructed and handed to them for free (see Nauvoo Illinois) and they still ended up with a failed economy.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 07:59:46 PM
 #140

Communism was tried multiple times in the US actually. Go read up on groups such as the Icarians. One of their settlements even had an entire town constructed and handed to them for free (see Nauvoo Illinois) and they still ended up with a failed economy.
Huh. I did not know about that.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 08:39:58 PM
 #141

entire town constructed and handed to them for free

= top-down. Benevolent, but still top down. Paternalism, treating them like children, basically. That's almost certainly not how human nature works.

The Spanish example is something completely different. Bottom-up self-organization. Learning by doing.



https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 08:52:24 PM
 #142

entire town constructed and handed to them for free

= top-down. Benevolent, but still top down. Paternalism, treating them like children, basically. That's almost certainly not how human nature works.

The Spanish example is something completely different. Bottom-up self-organization. Learning by doing.

The only real problem with communism is that it's against human nature in groups larger than a few hundred.
We're primates, at heart, and as such, don't do well with large "communities"
Once past a certain limit "community" starts to break down, and sharing with those outside of your community is a foreign concept to the primate mind.

Capitalism avoids this, by providing a means by which you can be certain that any interaction - even with a complete stranger - will result in you or your community benefiting. So if communism is better, economically, than capitalism, if it is more efficient, then what I would expect to see is multiple communities, interacting internally via communism, and externally via capitalism, or alternatively, individuals interacting only with friends, and strangers being automatically suspect.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Merralea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 09:11:05 PM
 #143

I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example:

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi...

Your reductio attempt is somewhat diminished by the fact that pretty much every Jew I know is essentially some form or another of a National Socialist.  Cheesy
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 09:26:25 PM
 #144

snip

Anarcho-capitalo-communism...o

I just got done with Living Utopia.  Amazing!  What I found interesting is that even in a communistic society, they still had to barter at some point in time with different towns; for example, if one town didn't have the means to produce wheat, they'd trade sugar for the wheat to a town which had lots of wheat but not a whole lot of sugar.  I've also noticed that societies tend to fare much worse when in large packs.  Would it be possible to combine both systems, so one caters to the "village" so to speak, and the other caters to large societal interaction?  I don't think every town can support every little thing required to make all types of food, desktop PCs, deodorant, jewelry, smart phone a, smart phone b, etc, meaning communism on a large scale would eventually need to form some type of capitalistic method to exchange these goods in and out.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 09:45:36 PM
 #145

snip

Anarcho-capitalo-communism...o

I just got done with Living Utopia.  Amazing!  What I found interesting is that even in a communistic society, they still had to barter at some point in time with different towns; for example, if one town didn't have the means to produce wheat, they'd trade sugar for the wheat to a town which had lots of wheat but not a whole lot of sugar.  I've also noticed that societies tend to fare much worse when in large packs.  Would it be possible to combine both systems, so one caters to the "village" so to speak, and the other caters to large societal interaction?  I don't think every town can support every little thing required to make all types of food, desktop PCs, deodorant, jewelry, smart phone a, smart phone b, etc, meaning communism on a large scale would eventually need to form some type of capitalistic method to exchange these goods in and out.

Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; and so on, adding more layers in which coordinate decisions would be taken horizontally and not vertically.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.

herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 09:47:50 PM
 #146

The only real problem with communism is that it's against human nature in groups larger than a few hundred.
We're primates, at heart, and as such, don't do well with large "communities"
Once past a certain limit "community" starts to break down, and sharing with those outside of your community is a foreign concept to the primate mind.

Capitalism avoids this, by providing a means by which you can be certain that any interaction - even with a complete stranger - will result in you or your community benefiting. So if communism is better, economically, than capitalism, if it is more efficient, then what I would expect to see is multiple communities, interacting internally via communism, and externally via capitalism, or alternatively, individuals interacting only with friends, and strangers being automatically suspect.

yes... Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

I also think that would approach a model which would largely satisfy most. Our modern "estranged" way of life results from too much separation, as some would argue. It boils down to individual property rights yes or no, I've always said you need a state for property rights. Without a state, you'd have to defend whatever you call your property. A group is surely more efficient to defend (and build) their common property. So the result is communal property "rights" if you will.

Now for the global scope, add internet and open source and free sharing of digital data, 3D printing, local production, industrial hemp, etc...

I wouldn't abolish it by force, as some Neo-Marxists seem to push for, but money would probably become more and more superfluous.


https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 09:56:33 PM
 #147


Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.


That's the issue; once a single collective group of people reaches a large enough number, it becomes highly impractical to make a decision that doesn't step on someone's toe somewhere.  In order for anarchism to work, communities would need to remain small enough to stay manageable among each other; to make sure communities remained small, you would encourage people to take complete responsibility over their own communities.  Because large communities become so unmanageable, they have to elect leaders to help keep the "brain" functioning, this leads to conflict, because the elected leader can never agree with the entire populace, making it a moot point to elect one.  The more people feel connected with each other, the less likely they'll feel the need to merge in great societies, and will stick to smaller ones, which communicate with other small societies if one society is stepping on another's toes, or they need/want something the other has that they themselves do not.

In this regard, cities could only exist in division; a city united would need a ruler, and thus, the anarchistic ideal goes away.  So the point would be: people must remain in their own "cliques", to keep a feeling of togetherness, to prevent the rising of rulers, and the division of people which happens anyway under statism.

OTOH, would ~6 or 7 billion societies of "me" function right if capitalism was the only focus?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 10:06:01 PM
 #148

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 10:21:34 PM
Last edit: April 07, 2013, 10:56:17 PM by Rampion
 #149


Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.


That's the issue; once a single collective group of people reaches a large enough number, it becomes highly impractical to make a decision that doesn't step on someone's toe somewhere.  In order for anarchism to work, communities would need to remain small enough to stay manageable among each other; to make sure communities remained small, you would encourage people to take complete responsibility over their own communities.  Because large communities become so unmanageable, they have to elect leaders to help keep the "brain" functioning, this leads to conflict, because the elected leader can never agree with the entire populace, making it a moot point to elect one.  The more people feel connected with each other, the less likely they'll feel the need to merge in great societies, and will stick to smaller ones, which communicate with other small societies if one society is stepping on another's toes, or they need/want something the other has that they themselves do not.

In this regard, cities could only exist in division; a city united would need a ruler, and thus, the anarchistic ideal goes away.  So the point would be: people must remain in their own "cliques", to keep a feeling of togetherness, to prevent the rising of rulers, and the division of people which happens anyway under statism.

The fact is that we never actively worked to make that model of anarchist society possible: we always assumed that anarchy was "impractical" and we created all kinds of states to impose and maintain the order...

Proudhon wrote: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order"

This is a very profound sentence that reflects the beliefs of Proudhon and the other anarchists on human nature... And by the way: aren't politics always about how we deal with what we believe it's human nature?

But the truth is that it's never been empirically proved that an anarchist society is not feasible - it's just speculations, and the very few anarchist experiences we had in History (as per Aragón, Spain 1930-1938) worked pretty well until the enemies wiped them out by force.



Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.


OTOH, would ~6 or 7 billion societies of "me" function right if capitalism was the only focus?

I would say that we are pretty much looking at it - but still there have been major improvements in terms of freedom in the last centuries.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 10:27:39 PM
 #150

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.

herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2013, 10:51:02 PM
 #151

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.

To expand on that, you'd probably have an "agency" that gives a fuck about all other agencies and says that Earth belongs to everyone because it is natural common heritage. And most workers would be in this agency because they aren't wealthy.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 07, 2013, 11:01:22 PM
 #152

I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

Just watched this amazing documentary - really really beautiful. Thank you, I did not know it.

Myrkul (and the others, by the way): I really recommend you to watch that. You will hear directly from anarchist's who actually made a revolution about work, money, freedom...

BlackSheep
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 12:07:34 AM
 #153

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

They have always wanted to abolish money.

"...houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished."

— Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

4. The End of the Money Trick
Two features of capitalism are essential to its existence—the wages system and a thorough and all-reaching system of money relationships. Unfortunately men are now so used to living by money that they find it difficult to imagine life without it. Yet it should be obvious that no libertarian and equalitarian society could make use of money. Syndicalism, as well as ending the wages system, also aims at the destruction of money relationships.

WAGES. The abolition of all wages and the establishment of the principle of equal income for all. What that income would be cannot be expressed in money terms, the only terms known to capitalist society, but it should certainly be more than double the present average wage.

EDUCATION. Education will be free to all able to benefit from it and wishing to enjoy it, free from kindergarten to university. Classes would be smaller, equipment improved and new schools built. The recent trend of education from coercion and terrorism to freedom and co-operation of teacher and scholar would be accelerated.

MEDICINE. Medical treatment would be free—medicine, attendance, clinics and hospitals. But the new society would increase the health of all, not by a new flood of physic, but, in main, by a better diet, right working and living conditions and the end of industrial fatigue.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3QPiFzdlAcJ:libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

It is embarrassing that someone in the 21st century can hold these views.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 08, 2013, 12:16:07 AM
 #154

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

They have always wanted to abolish money.

"...houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished."

— Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

4. The End of the Money Trick
Two features of capitalism are essential to its existence—the wages system and a thorough and all-reaching system of money relationships. Unfortunately men are now so used to living by money that they find it difficult to imagine life without it. Yet it should be obvious that no libertarian and equalitarian society could make use of money. Syndicalism, as well as ending the wages system, also aims at the destruction of money relationships.

WAGES. The abolition of all wages and the establishment of the principle of equal income for all. What that income would be cannot be expressed in money terms, the only terms known to capitalist society, but it should certainly be more than double the present average wage.

EDUCATION. Education will be free to all able to benefit from it and wishing to enjoy it, free from kindergarten to university. Classes would be smaller, equipment improved and new schools built. The recent trend of education from coercion and terrorism to freedom and co-operation of teacher and scholar would be accelerated.

MEDICINE. Medical treatment would be free—medicine, attendance, clinics and hospitals. But the new society would increase the health of all, not by a new flood of physic, but, in main, by a better diet, right working and living conditions and the end of industrial fatigue.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3QPiFzdlAcJ:libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

It is embarrassing that someone in the 21st century can hold these views.

Go on.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 02:12:27 AM
 #155

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.
Not at all. Justice is a decidedly inexpensive service to provide, and it is typical for the fees to be included in the judgment amount. In an AnCap society, you get justice, and the other guy pays for it.

To expand on that, you'd probably have an "agency" that gives a fuck about all other agencies and says that Earth belongs to everyone because it is natural common heritage. And most workers would be in this agency because they aren't wealthy.
While I can certainly see a market for low-cost legal services, and find it likely that a union would provide such for it's members, an isolationist policy like that would be ruinous. Are workers really "workers" if they can't find any work?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ArmoredDragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 03:14:19 AM
 #156

One distinction I make between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians are fine with just enough laws to keep things civil and make sure that people aren't making each others lives miserable. But we don't need laws that protect us from ourselves.

I get annoyed when liberals act as though we treat any and all regulation as the boogyman. It's not true, we'll accept reasonable regulation, for example the EPA prevents dumping toxic substances from ground water, or the FCC regulating spectrum use. Unacceptable regulations would be like sugar tariffs, or any tariff for that matter because tariffs don't do anything except raise the price of domestic goods while doing nothing to help us compete with the global economy, and in fact make it harder to do so, which while protecting perhaps a few sugar industry jobs, will cost us many more jobs elsewhere.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 03:17:30 AM
 #157

One distinction I make between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians are fine with just enough laws to keep things civil and make sure that people aren't making each others lives miserable. But we don't need laws that protect us from ourselves.

I get annoyed when liberals act as though we treat any and all regulation as the boogyman. It's not true, we'll accept reasonable regulation, for example the EPA prevents dumping toxic substances from ground water, or the FCC regulating spectrum use. Unacceptable regulations would be like sugar tariffs, or any tariff for that matter because tariffs don't do anything except raise the price of domestic goods while doing nothing to help us compete with the global economy.

Ironically, you're making the same mistake they are: conflating "laws" with "government."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JordanL
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 08, 2013, 05:25:57 AM
 #158

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 05:41:12 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2013, 06:16:07 AM by myrkul
 #159

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

First off, I take offense at being labeled "right wing." I am not a right winger, not in the least. I advocate personal freedoms, as well as economic ones. I don't care who you sleep with, what you smoke, or who you pray to.

Secondly, if you understood AnCap, you'd understand that ignorance is the last thing you will find among it's adherents.

Finally, I've yet to see a socialist explain how to get around the whole "you have to work to survive" thing, and I don't expect you to be any different.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 08, 2013, 06:03:54 AM
 #160

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

Where exactly are you getting this from?  And I don't mean this as a hypothetical; there must be some publication somewhere which has mislead you.  You should take a moment to actually understand; nobody who identifies with AnCap considers themselves anywhere close to either "wing".  If you've always laughed about it, it's troubling knowing you've been under a misconception for some time.  I'm well aware the current system we're under is slavery, which is why I advocate anarchism to begin with.  There's nothing I despise more than wage slavery; if the government sanctions on monopolies and oligarchies are torn down, you'll see the poor and the rich classes coincide and melt into one another; people work for themselves, not a boss, or their boss, or their boss.  The free market is exactly that: a market without government intervention.  How this translates into wage slavery is beyond me.

Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 06:29:05 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2013, 08:22:59 AM by Rampion
 #161

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

Where exactly are you getting this from?  And I don't mean this as a hypothetical; there must be some publication somewhere which has mislead you.  You should take a moment to actually understand; nobody who identifies with AnCap considers themselves anywhere close to either "wing".  If you've always laughed about it, it's troubling knowing you've been under a misconception for some time.  I'm well aware the current system we're under is slavery, which is why I advocate anarchism to begin with.  There's nothing I despise more than wage slavery; if the government sanctions on monopolies and oligarchies are torn down, you'll see the poor and the rich classes coincide and melt into one another; people work for themselves, not a boss, or their boss, or their boss.  The free market is exactly that: a market without government intervention.  How this translates into wage slavery is beyond me.

1) Right and left wing are still valid terms, even tough modern politicians tend to say that these are obsolete terms in an attempt of erasing all historical memory, class consciousness and revolutionary spirit.

2) The fundamental difference between right and left is not very clear for the majority of the people nowadays due to a lack of political culture, yet it is very simple: it's just a philosophical position on equality and inequality.

  • For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men; therefore left will work toward abolishing/diminishing the inequality in society (inequality of wealth, not physical inequality).
  • For right, inequality is a product of nature, thus is not only not negative but its necessary for people to "work their asses off" in order to improve their condition. In fact, what would be a capitalist system without inequality fueling competitiveness?

This is of course linked again with Rousseau, who thought that the only natural inequality was the physical one: one man being taller than the other, etc.

And yes, according to the traditional sense of the words "left" and "right" a capitalist supporter will always be right wingish, while an anarchist will always be left wingish. As explained above, the terms have nothing to do with being more or less authoritarian, pro-state, etc. They are just related with a position on what's the natural outcome of nature: equality or inequality.

And now just a short quote from Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)

Quote
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 07:23:01 AM
 #162

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?
Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere.

  • For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men
  • For right, inequality is a product of nature
This is the first I have ever heard or seen of this definition of right and left. But, under that definition, you're damn right I'm Right. Inequality is a product of nature. You said it yourself: Mankind is not all equal. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some stronger. Some have a head for finance, some do not. Some are risk-takers, some are not. Generally, those who do not have a head for finance, or do not take risks, end up working for those who do.

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 08:13:19 AM
 #163

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?
Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere.


The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me.

Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better.

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?
Those with weak principles perhaps, or who are still deluded enough to think working within the system will get you anywhere.

  • For left, inequality is an artificial construction of men
  • For right, inequality is a product of nature
This is the first I have ever heard or seen of this definition of right and left. But, under that definition, you're damn right I'm Right. Inequality is a product of nature. You said it yourself: Mankind is not all equal. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some stronger. Some have a head for finance, some do not. Some are risk-takers, some are not. Generally, those who do not have a head for finance, or do not take risks, end up working for those who do.

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

I had no doubt that you were Right, my friend. About "left and right" in politics I recommend you Norberto Bobbios Left & Right. In that book he analyzes how these two terms have evolved since their first use in 1789, and how the very key fundamental that remains constant is the distinct position on inequality.

And now a Wikipedia quote:

Quote
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9]

So, according to Wikipedia (which is not a source I would 100% commit to) you would be considered an "economic-libertarian". For historical reasons I prefer the word "liberal" or "economic liberal", even if I know that the word "liberal" is associated to the left in US - not so much in Europe.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 09:08:33 AM
 #164

The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me.

Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better.
You've earned a bit of esteem in my eyes by this... that you refuse even force by proxy as "filthy" speaks well of you. And yes, perhaps a single-issue vote, against a specific measure, might help achieve some goal or another, but as you said, it is a filthy practice, voting, and I consider what few benefits it may offer insufficient to offset the distaste.

This is the first I have ever heard or seen of this definition of right and left. But, under that definition, you're damn right I'm Right. Inequality is a product of nature. You said it yourself: Mankind is not all equal. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some stronger. Some have a head for finance, some do not. Some are risk-takers, some are not. Generally, those who do not have a head for finance, or do not take risks, end up working for those who do.

I had no doubt that you were Right, my friend. About "left and right" in politics I recommend you Norberto Bobbios Left & Right. In that book he analyzes how these two terms have evolved since their first use in 1789, and how the very key fundamental that remains constant is the distinct position on inequality.

And now a Wikipedia quote:

Quote
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,[5][6][7][8] and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.[9]

So, according to Wikipedia (which is not a source I would 100% commit to) you would be considered an "economic-libertarian". For historical reasons I prefer the word "liberal" or "economic liberal", even if I know that the word "liberal" is associated to the left in US - not so much in Europe.
On the traditional left-right scale, I don't even measure. Nor, I think, would you. We are to either side of a different axis, one perpendicular, if you will, to left/right. This axis goes from anarchist (we'll call it anti-state, to include both of us, since you prefer to use anarchist to mean communist anarchist) to totalitarianism at the other end. When this axis is combined with the traditional left/right axis, the resulting Cartesian coordinate set is called a "nolan chart":

We both want maximum freedom, where we disagree is in the minor things - how we think society will organize itself absent the force of the state. You think that people will mostly cooperate, while I think that people will mostly compete.

It would be nice if we could all just cooperate, but I don't think it's within human nature. Between our natural desire to better ourselves, and the Dunbar limit, Communism just isn't viable beyond a small community. That's not to say that individual companies would not be set up as coops, and they may even be able to compete with traditional hierarchical company structures (but at least one person would disagree), or that communities couldn't organize cooperatively, or that mutual aid societies wouldn't exist. In fact, I expect them to take up much of the social load that is currently borne by the taxpayer. I don't even think that unions wouldn't be a powerful force. Collective bargaining is just as important to the proper functioning of capitalism as is the capitalist himself. But these things will be pockets, islands of cooperation in a vast sea of competition.

So we've placed me. But you, and your comrades, have consistently skirted around several issues. I'll settle for you responding to this one:

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rampion (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1017


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 10:00:13 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2013, 10:16:30 AM by Rampion
 #165

The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me.

Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better.
You've earned a bit of esteem in my eyes by this... that you refuse even force by proxy as "filthy" speaks well of you. And yes, perhaps a single-issue vote, against a specific measure, might help achieve some goal or another, but as you said, it is a filthy practice, voting, and I consider what few benefits it may offer insufficient to offset the distaste.


I already got a lot of esteem for you - not because we agree on some important points, but because we disagree on some important points and still your debating in an intelligent and civilized way. And you are not making fun of my very poor english Wink


So we've placed me. But you, and your comrades, have consistently skirted around several issues. I'll settle for you responding to this one:

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

Obviously no real anarchist would try to equalize wealth by force. That's why anarchists and communists fighted to death despite the fact that they initially cooperated in the First International. As Rudolph Rocker's said:

Quote
Socialism will either be free, or it won't be at all.

I also disagree with you on the fact of the "less able stealing from the more productive". I think this is unrealistic and won't happen, as mid-sized (Aragón, Spain) and small-sized (Israel Kibutz's) anarchist experiences has demonstrated. How it would work on a large scale, we don't know - we can just speculate.

I personally believe that capitalism and its wild competition, its perpetual growth goal, etc. is profoundly self-destructive. I think that "nature's way" is cooperation. While Darwin was right pointing out that nature is a fight for survival, this does not invalidate the fact that the vast majority of animals and pre-private property societies cooperate in order to survive. Just look at bees, aunts, etc... Kropotkin wrote a wonderful anthropological essay about that.

As per Kropotkin:

Quote
There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense...Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.

Last but not least: I'm also surprised by the US conception of "liberal" as left-wing. While it is true that the first liberals (Enlightenment age free-thinkers) have inspired both left and right wing philosophies, and that they were more "left-wing" oriented in the sense I explained above (position on inequality), the historical truth is that modern liberalist theories were prolifically developed by "lassaiz-faire" supporters of industrial capitalism of the likes of Adam Smith, Locke and more recently Hayek, Mises, etc. Therefore, XIX Century inspired liberalism is pro-capitalist and right-wing. This is commonly accepted in Europe (all right wing parties except fascists call themselves "liberals"), while in US you call liberals left-wing supporters. Quite curious indeed, and with no historical basis IMO.

ArmoredDragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 11:01:55 AM
 #166

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

You aren't talking to me are you? If so, what do you define as being right wing? Is supporting the legalization of all narcotics, or all substances for that matter, right wing? (And no, I don't use drugs, I just think it's wrong for say Chuck Schumer to want to stick some derp in jail for the crime of getting high as if it is any of his business.) Is being atheist right wing? Is being indifferent to abortion and homosexuality (as in, not opposing but not encouraging - more or less simply not caring because I believe people should be able to do what they want so I won't intervene) right wing?

If so, then I guess I'm one big right winger. And I am a capitalist too. I distinguish myself from anarchist in that I believe in a central government to represent our international interests as well as provide defense, in addition to providing policing to maintain civilization. However I am opposed to all forms of forced welfare as well as the idea of protecting one from themselves (e.g. by banning narcotics, soft drinks, etc.)

I got a better idea though: I think the right vs left labels need to die. Personally I don't even like the libertarian label because it doesn't do much to distinguish what I consider to be very separate areas of libertarian thought. I only use that label because people such as yourself are so entrenched in the right vs left game, that when talking to people such as yourself it is necessary to use short terms to indicate that I am not part of that system.
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 02:02:32 PM
 #167

I think there are two flavors of anarcho-capitalism.

1) Anarcho-capitalism as a free market ideology.

2) Anarcho-capitalism as the idea and action of counter-economics, with the goal of hollowing out the state, and establishing a more egalitarian society. In this sense, "anarcho" and "capitalism" shouldn't be a contradiction in terms even for lefties.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2013, 03:33:31 PM
 #168

The fact that I never voted in my life could mean that I agree with you. I do not have the guts to vote, it's a too filthy mechanism for me.

Nevertheless, I still think that "working inside the system" can be positive to achieve specific goals that make our day-by-day life better.
You've earned a bit of esteem in my eyes by this... that you refuse even force by proxy as "filthy" speaks well of you. And yes, perhaps a single-issue vote, against a specific measure, might help achieve some goal or another, but as you said, it is a filthy practice, voting, and I consider what few benefits it may offer insufficient to offset the distaste.


I already got a lot of esteem for you - not because we agree on some important points, but because we disagree on some important points and still your debating in an intelligent and civilized way. And you are not making fun of my very poor english Wink
It's always the people with excellent English, for a non-native speaker, that consider their English "poor." You've a better grasp of English grammar and spelling than most native speakers I talk to. Certainly better than my Spanish.

So we've placed me. But you, and your comrades, have consistently skirted around several issues. I'll settle for you responding to this one:

I'm all for equalizing opportunities. That's why I'm anti-State. But when you try to equalize wealth, you only end up with fail. You'd need to continually steal from the more productive, and give to those less able. Then what are you doing, but trying to compensate for physical or mental inequalities? And eventually, the result is exactly the opposite of your goal. Opportunities are quashed, along with the drive to take them. Why bother, when anything you do to stick out from the crowd will just be cut off and siphoned to those who didn't take the opportunity you did? Meanwhile, the apparatus you've set up to equalize wealth has itself become the most powerful player in the game, and we're back to square one.

Obviously no real anarchist would try to equalize wealth by force. That's why anarchists and communists fighted to death despite the fact that they initially cooperated in the First International. As Rudolph Rocker's said:

Quote
Socialism will either be free, or it won't be at all.
Then I suppose you'll have to forgive me that I believe it won't be at all, outside of relatively small groups. It's just not a suitable system for organizing people above the Dunbar limit. Humans are fine with sharing with people they consider "us." Family, and occasionally friends. That's why it works OK on the Kibbutz or in Aragón, but every time it's been tried on a larger scale, it requires a state to force people to share with strangers. To me, "voluntary socialism" is just as much a contradiction in terms as "Anarcho-capitalist" is to you.

I personally believe that capitalism and its wild competition, its perpetual growth goal, etc. is profoundly self-destructive. I think that "nature's way" is cooperation. While Darwin was right pointing out that nature is a fight for survival, this does not invalidate the fact that the vast majority of animals and pre-private property societies cooperate in order to survive. Just look at bees, aunts, etc... Kropotkin wrote a wonderful anthropological essay about that.

As per Kropotkin:

Quote
There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense...Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.
The defining factor of pre-private-property societies is their size: they are universally much smaller than an average city. Tribal communities had (and still have) no problem sharing amongst themselves, because they all know each other. Dunbar's number again. Bees and Ants, of course, are very poor examples of "anarchist" societies, as they are very hierarchical, and have rigid caste systems. A worker bee is always a worker bee. She can never become a Queen. As well, they destroy anyone who isn't "us."

Last but not least: I'm also surprised by the US conception of "liberal" as left-wing. While it is true that the first liberals (Enlightenment age free-thinkers) have inspired both left and right wing philosophies, and that they were more "left-wing" oriented in the sense I explained above (position on inequality), the historical truth is that modern liberalist theories were prolifically developed by "lassaiz-faire" supporters of industrial capitalism of the likes of Adam Smith, Locke and more recently Hayek, Mises, etc. Therefore, XIX Century inspired liberalism is pro-capitalist and right-wing. This is commonly accepted in Europe (all right wing parties except fascists call themselves "liberals"), while in US you call liberals left-wing supporters. Quite curious indeed, and with no historical basis IMO.
Eh. Linguistic drift. Words get co-opted all the time here in the US. We're used to it, we just move on to another word. I'd like to see them try to fuck up the meaning of "Voluntaryist," though.

I think there are two flavors of anarcho-capitalism.

1) Anarcho-capitalism as a free market ideology.

2) Anarcho-capitalism as the idea and action of counter-economics, with the goal of hollowing out the state, and establishing a more egalitarian society. In this sense, "anarcho" and "capitalism" shouldn't be a contradiction in terms even for lefties.
These are actually the same "flavor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BlackSheep
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 08, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2013, 09:39:21 PM by BlackSheep
 #169

Quote

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?


The anarchist's and communist's opposition to money has never been about "freeing them from the banker's slavery". It has always been about its "means of creating false values".

"4. The End of the Money Trick
Two features of capitalism are essential to its existence—the wages system and a thorough and all-reaching system of money relationships. Unfortunately men are now so used to living by money that they find it difficult to imagine life without it. Yet it should be obvious that no libertarian and equalitarian society could make use of money. Syndicalism, as well as ending the wages system, also aims at the destruction of money relationships.

Money, more than any other human product, has been the means of creating false values. We each know of persons who began by wanting money as the means to other ends, but who spent so much energy accumulating money they forgot their original aim and continued to live for money. For means become ends. Is it not obvious that the wealthy trade unions, which have collected hundreds of millions of pounds by the promise to pay strike and other benefits, are now capitalist investment trusts afraid of strikes which threaten their investments?"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3QPiFzdlAcJ:libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

TL;DR Not only do you not know shit about finance, economics & reality, you don't even know shit about your own ideology.
liberty90
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 09, 2013, 11:36:39 PM
 #170

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians"

I assure you that anarcho-capitalists exist in Europe.
Well, I think that I exist, anyway. I think so I'am Wink


Property can exist without a state - if you have land, fence and gun; then you certainly have private property.
Defense of private property is easier than offense (you can even mine your land), so private property will exist without a state.

Not that such extreme defenses would be needed in most cases.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 09, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
 #171

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians"

I assure you that anarcho-capitalists exist in Europe.
Well, I think that I exist, anyway. I think so I'am Wink


Property can exist without a state - if you have land, fence and gun; then you certainly have private property.
Defense of private property is easier than offense (you can even mine your land), so private property will exist without a state.

Not that such extreme defenses would be needed in most cases.

One can argue private property doesn't exist with the state; after all, if it is my property, why am I paying the government to exist on it?  Tongue

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 12:00:28 AM
 #172

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians"

I assure you that anarcho-capitalists exist in Europe.
Well, I think that I exist, anyway. I think so I'am Wink


Property can exist without a state - if you have land, fence and gun; then you certainly have private property.
Defense of private property is easier than offense (you can even mine your land), so private property will exist without a state.

Not that such extreme defenses would be needed in most cases.

One can argue private property doesn't exist with the state; after all, if it is my property, why am I paying the government to exist on it?  Tongue
This.

Private property can only exist in an environment where rights are respected, government, by it's very nature, violates those rights.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Ella
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0



View Profile
April 10, 2013, 12:21:17 AM
 #173

Hello, I'm discovering this topic. Rampion, are you European ? (I am, so I understand what you mean but…)

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.
Yes but… read Proudhon at the end of his life, he was clearly pro-free-market, and also said «Property is freedom». You can verify. Anarchist, he was fascinated by Jean-Baptiste Say and had a long exchange with Frédéric Bastiat in the journal La Voix du Peuple. He's been very hard with Marx and his collectivism in Philosophy of Misery, I think he never did his coming-out as a «liberal» (at the european sense, libertarian in the US).

Quote
  • What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear Wink)
Theory of Property, same author ! Wink
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 12:35:21 AM
 #174

Hello, I'm discovering this topic. Rampion, are you European ? (I am, so I understand what you mean but…)

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.
Yes but… read Proudhon at the end of his life, he was clearly pro-free-market, and also said «Property is freedom». You can verify. Anarchist, he was fascinated by Jean-Baptiste Say and had a long exchange with Frédéric Bastiat in the journal La Voix du Peuple. He's been very hard with Marx and his collectivism in Philosophy of Misery, I think he never did his coming-out as a «liberal» (at the european sense, libertarian in the US).

Quote
  • What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear Wink)
Theory of Property, same author ! Wink
I quote here from the appendices of the Illuminatus! trilogy:

Quote
APPENDIX ZAIN: PROPERTY AND PRIVILEGE

Property is theft
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is liberty.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is impossible.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON
 
Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to
indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some
beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts
attached for maximum clarity.
"Property1 is theft" means that property1, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other
authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction. 

"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (= property1) creates so much conflict of interest that
society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties1 and
3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos. 

It is not averred, of course, that property3 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians— especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand— is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property? and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.

I think if you start with the supposition that each person owns (property2) their own body, most everything gets a "yes" to that question. Except, of course, "intellectual property." (which is property3 if ever I saw it.)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 12:54:47 AM
 #175

force by proxy
Ah, shit. There goes my whole "vote for softer chains" idea. Although, it might still be moral to vote for a lack of force (e.g. legalizing marijuana)...?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 01:03:13 AM
 #176

force by proxy
Ah, shit. There goes my whole "vote for softer chains" idea. Although, it might still be moral to vote for a lack of force (e.g. legalizing marijuana)...?
Yeah, as long as it's not a "tax and regulate."

I prefer to simply ignore bad laws like that, myself.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 01:08:52 AM
 #177

force by proxy
Ah, shit. There goes my whole "vote for softer chains" idea. Although, it might still be moral to vote for a lack of force (e.g. legalizing marijuana)...?
Yeah, as long as it's not a "tax and regulate."

I prefer to simply ignore bad laws like that, myself.
Cool. Strange how much 3 words can change your outlook when you use logic and avoid being defensive.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 10, 2013, 01:10:07 AM
 #178

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.  By playing the game of violence, to seek any sort of peace is in vain.  Therefor, peace can only be attained by thwarting the system which, in essence, is violent.  The most peaceful statist society is always open for more violence; people are always willing to give up their freedoms if they believe it will stop the problems in their world.  But it's tragic, because all large-scale problems are caused by the system used to solve the problems.  Government is great to solve a problem after it creates a problem.

nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 01:20:55 AM
 #179

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.
This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 10, 2013, 01:36:18 AM
 #180

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.
This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).

You're right; the force stops.  However, because the system is still in place, marijuana can just as easily be abolished once again.  Laws are never permanent, they are always changed, and they are always at another's expense.  Politics center around one thing: rob Peter to pay Paul.  So the problem is law.  To participate in such a system is to agree that violence is the answer; even though you may not agree that violence is the best answer, you may even despise violence with all your might, by participating in violence to revoke violence temporarily, you admit that it's an acceptable form of action.  I don't believe it is.  Cut off one head, two more grow in its place.  So you attack the heart.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 01:40:54 AM
 #181

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.
This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).

Voting, even against a new law, or to repeal an old one, just makes me feel dirty. It's like you're asking them to "pretty please, stop putting people in a cage for having this plant?" when the proper response to such a law is "Piss off!"

But to each his own, and if it helps stop the violence, I'm for it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 01:49:30 AM
 #182

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.
This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).

You're right; the force stops.  However, because the system is still in place, marijuana can just as easily be abolished once again.  Laws are never permanent, they are always changed, and they are always at another's expense. 
This much is true. Again, I agree with your first point, but fail to see what follows from it.
Quote
Politics center around one thing: rob Peter to pay Paul.  So the problem is law.
Sure.
Quote
To participate in such a system is to agree that violence is the answer; even though you may not agree that violence is the best answer, you may even despise violence with all your might, by participating in violence to revoke violence temporarily, you admit that it's an acceptable form of action.
See, this is where I'm missing the point. Saying "I want the violence to stop" and having someone listen to you doesn't justify the violence.
Quote
I don't believe it is.
Neither do I.
Quote
Cut off one head, two more grow in its place.  So you attack the heart.
And... you lost me.




Voting, even against a new law, or to repeal an old one, just makes me feel dirty. It's like you're asking them to "pretty please, stop putting people in a cage for having this plant?" when the proper response to such a law is "Piss off!"

But to each his own, and if it helps stop the violence, I'm for it.
We don't actually disagree on anything meaningful (as far as I can tell). You have every right to "feel dirty," and I have the right to avoid smoking marijuana even though you may enjoy it.
To each his own opinions, and it seems we've reduced our conflict to unquantifiable opinions ("red is the best color").
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 01:54:51 AM
 #183

Quote
Cut off one head, two more grow in its place.  So you attack the heart.
And... you lost me.

Perhaps Thoreau can explain it better:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Voting down bad laws = hacking at branches
Doing away with Gov't altogether = striking the root

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 02:00:12 AM
 #184

Quote
Cut off one head, two more grow in its place.  So you attack the heart.
And... you lost me.

Perhaps Thoreau can explain it better:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Voting down bad laws = hacking at branches
Doing away with Gov't altogether = striking the root
Still can't make the jump from the above agreeable statement to "all voting is immoral." Someone please give me a nice, formal, logical if-then statement.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 02:12:20 AM
 #185

Quote
Cut off one head, two more grow in its place.  So you attack the heart.
And... you lost me.

Perhaps Thoreau can explain it better:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Voting down bad laws = hacking at branches
Doing away with Gov't altogether = striking the root
Still can't make the jump from the above agreeable statement to "all voting is immoral." Someone please give me a nice, formal, logical if-then statement.
It's less "all voting is immoral" than "Using the immoral apparatus of the state, even with good intentions, legitimizes that system, and makes misuse more likely."

Or, to put it in slightly more geeky terms, "No, Boromir, you shouldn't use the ring, even if it is to fight Sauron."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 02:18:55 AM
 #186

Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system.
Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question.

If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 02:35:57 AM
 #187

Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system.
Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question.

If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur.
OK, look at it this way: Yes, it's moral to fight against someone trying to impose their will upon you by force. But by voting, you inherently agree to the rules of the contest - rules set by the agressor. I think you can see why that might be a bad idea. When you vote, you are accepting that the state has the authority to make this decision via this method, and are submitting to the will of the majority - no matter what the outcome.

If you voted, you can't complain.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 02:56:52 AM
 #188

Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system.
Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question.

If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur.
OK, look at it this way: Yes, it's moral to fight against someone trying to impose their will upon you by force. But by voting, you inherently agree to the rules of the contest - rules set by the agressor. I think you can see why that might be a bad idea. When you vote, you are accepting that the state has the authority to make this decision via this method, and are submitting to the will of the majority - no matter what the outcome.

If you voted, you can't complain.
Can't we separate these actions (voting and accepting authority)? What is wrong with saying "I don't recognize your moral right to exist, and please stop existing ASAP, but while you do exist, please minimize your use of force?"
A bully wants your lunch money. Are you accepting his right to take your money by asking him not to bully you?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 02:57:55 AM
 #189

Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system.
Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question.

If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur.
OK, look at it this way: Yes, it's moral to fight against someone trying to impose their will upon you by force. But by voting, you inherently agree to the rules of the contest - rules set by the agressor. I think you can see why that might be a bad idea. When you vote, you are accepting that the state has the authority to make this decision via this method, and are submitting to the will of the majority - no matter what the outcome.

If you voted, you can't complain.
Can't we separate these actions (voting and accepting authority)? What is wrong with saying "I don't recognize your moral right to exist, and please stop existing ASAP, but while you do exist, please minimize your use of force?"
A bully wants your lunch money. Are you accepting his right to take your money by asking him not to bully you?
If you're asking, yes.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
April 10, 2013, 03:14:12 AM
 #190

What we've got here is a language failure.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 03:25:16 AM
 #191

What we've got here is a language failure.
Asking someone to do, or not do, something isn't just a polite way of telling them. It is granting them the decision-making power of whether or not to comply.

You have to understand that the word "please" is short for "If it pleases you," so if you ask a bully, "Please stop hitting me," what you're saying is, "If it pleases you to do so, stop hitting me." Asking allows, inherently, for the option of "no" being the answer.

Compare that to "Stop hitting me." or or the even more forceful, "I will not allow you to hit me again."

"Please stop hitting me" asserts his right to continue, if he wishes, while "Stop hitting me" asserts your right to prevent him from continuing.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 10, 2013, 04:20:57 AM
 #192

It works like this: if the state tells you to do something, you must do it. If you do not, you will be forced to. If force means we must kill you, then so be it; the law comes before your life. Is this not in direct violation to basic human rights? Will you deny my right to live for the sake of "order"?

It is immoral to support this system. By voting, you are agreeing that it is perfectly okay to use this system against me, even if that means killing me. I have done nothing to you. You do not know me. And yet your vote, no matter the direction, will be used against me. This is statism; this is your power to vote given away to the government. There are many ways to vote, but a yae or nay to use the power of state force against me, a stranger, is immoral.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2013, 04:28:34 AM
 #193

It works like this: if the state tells you to do something, you must do it. If you do not, you will be forced to. If force means we must kill you, then so be it; the law comes before your life. Is this not in direct violation to basic human rights? Will you deny my right to live for the sake of "order"?

It is immoral to support this system. By voting, you are agreeing that it is perfectly okay to use this system against me, even if that means killing me. I have done nothing to you. You do not know me. And yet your vote, no matter the direction, will be used against me. This is statism; this is your power to vote given away to the government. There are many ways to vote, but a yae or nay to use the power of state force against me, a stranger, is immoral.

It's not even that (though that's part of it). You're authorizing the use of force against yourself, too. Even if you vote against it. "But I voted to legalize" is not a valid defense if caught with weed.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
liberty90
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 10, 2013, 12:49:31 PM
 #194

Hello, I'm discovering this topic. Rampion, are you European ? (I am, so I understand what you mean but…)

Please ! I'm European also, and I'm proud free-market libertarian.

(at the european sense, libertarian in the US).

Absolutely not true. Mainstream "liberal" parties in Europe don't have anything in common with classical liberalism or libertarianism.
Yes, sometimes they want slightly smaller state (maybe 40% income tax, not 45%...), but they have less common with classical liberalism/libertarianism than US Republican Party.

Actual libertarians, people who in the US would support Libertarian Party (or who support agorism everywhere Grin ); don't call themselves "liberals", even in Europe ! Well, at least not in Poland.
https://libertarianizm.net/ - Polish radical, libertarian forum, if somebody know language

Calling himself "liberal" in Europe is like calling himself "Republican" in the US - yes, maybe slightly lower income tax, but...  Roll Eyes


Sorry for my bad English, but this is important thread and horrific misconceptions, sometimes I must say something Wink
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:45:37 AM
 #195

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  Roll Eyes

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.

If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists think you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:

1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).

And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production. Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception. Anarchists were born in industrail societies, and their mutualist conception of the economy is tightly linked to industrial society.

Why do all you anarcho-syndicalists have a problem with both of our systems existing side by side? I don't want your brand of freedom. Let me keep mine.

You want to have areas where worker unions jointly own the means of production? Go for it. Have at it! Pool your funds together and build a factory which you can all share. I won't try to stop you. I'm completely okay with that.

OP: Semantic masturbation.
Absolutely this.

This isn't the first time I've heard a syndicalist get all up in arms over the use of the term anarchism being applied to ancaps. In fact, I've seen them get upset over the "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism. "That's deeply offensive", I've heard before. What other term are we supposed to use to describe ourselves? Self-governing traders? Freecaps maybe? Common-law-business-believers? I don't know.

That aside, even a syndicalist can't be completely against capitalism.

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

I swear, they always confuse corporatism for capitalism.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:49:13 AM
 #196

ITT, we discuss the English language and how it's always trying to start shit.

Grin

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2013, 05:51:00 AM
 #197

This isn't the first time I've heard a syndicalist get all up in arms over the use of the term anarchism being applied to ancaps. In fact, I've seen them get upset over the "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism. "That's deeply offensive", I've heard before. What other term are we supposed to use to describe ourselves? Self-governing traders? Freecaps maybe? Common-law-business-believers? I don't know.

Capitalist pigs, maybe?

I'm sure he'd accept that.  Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:57:49 AM
 #198

This isn't the first time I've heard a syndicalist get all up in arms over the use of the term anarchism being applied to ancaps. In fact, I've seen them get upset over the "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism. "That's deeply offensive", I've heard before. What other term are we supposed to use to describe ourselves? Self-governing traders? Freecaps maybe? Common-law-business-believers? I don't know.

Capitalist pigs, maybe?

I'm sure he'd accept that.  Wink
Yes, but then how would we be able to tell the difference between us and statists that like general freedom to trade? Sad
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2013, 06:05:14 AM
 #199

This isn't the first time I've heard a syndicalist get all up in arms over the use of the term anarchism being applied to ancaps. In fact, I've seen them get upset over the "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism. "That's deeply offensive", I've heard before. What other term are we supposed to use to describe ourselves? Self-governing traders? Freecaps maybe? Common-law-business-believers? I don't know.

Capitalist pigs, maybe?

I'm sure he'd accept that.  Wink
Yes, but then how would we be able to tell the difference between us and statists that like general freedom to trade? Sad
Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 06:53:21 AM
 #200

I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.
Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2013, 04:31:45 PM
Last edit: April 14, 2013, 05:09:18 PM by myrkul
 #201

I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.
Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.
Well, yeah, but they want it to be done voluntarily.

And here, I'll quote Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:06:11 PM
 #202

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Of course, this scenario would never happen because... I dunno. Magic?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:08:19 PM
 #203

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.

Of course, this scenario would never happen because... I dunno. Magic?

Not quite; on a small scale, this is what would happen.  But on a large scale, with one society trading with another society, it would have to happen capitalism-style.  Unless, of course, we're talking about state communism, in which case, we're all fucked and destined to die in a war for the mother land.

Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:11:46 PM
 #204

Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

The problem with that is that it make laissez faire or anarchist a modifier to "capitalist" which both implies that the main aim is capitalism (it's not for me. I'm for freedom first) and that the capitalism is somewhat exclusive to these viewpoints, thus making it easy to vilify and oppose it (try telling an occupier that your need for his ipad is greater than his and see how quickly the capitalism comes out). I'd say something like "minarchist" describes my position better.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2013, 05:36:41 PM
 #205

Well, I have always called that State capitalism, or corporatism, But perhaps he would accept laissez faire capitalist to describe us? We could try to take back Liberal. I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.

Ah, fuck it. I'm an AnCap. Deal with it, ya commie bastids.

The problem with that is that it make laissez faire or anarchist a modifier to "capitalist" which both implies that the main aim is capitalism (it's not for me. I'm for freedom first) and that the capitalism is somewhat exclusive to these viewpoints, thus making it easy to vilify and oppose it (try telling an occupier that your need for his ipad is greater than his and see how quickly the capitalism comes out). I'd say something like "minarchist" describes my position better.

Capitalism is exclusive of anarchy or state. Capitalism is quite simply the operation of for-profit business. Who owns these businesses and which (if any) businesses are run by the State is what determines the anarchy/state axis. Typical "laissez faire capitalism" lets most of these businesses be owned and operated by private individuals, retaining State monopoly only on Defense and Justice. Anarcho-capitalism lets private individuals run Defense and Justice companies, as well. State capitalism moves progressively more industries under government control, either through regulation or direct ownership and operation. At the far end, we have fascism, where every industry is directly or indirectly controlled by the government.

By contrast, we have communism. There's less of a spectrum, here, it's pretty much either/or. Either everything is shared voluntarily, or it's all controlled by the State and doled out as they see fit. People being people, the first form hardly ever lasts for long or expands beyond a small group without becoming the latter.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
April 14, 2013, 05:57:11 PM
 #206

Even in small groups, it tends to have problems. Way back when, there was a small colony of progressives set up not far from here. They didn't last too long. About all it's really good for is about family sized and even then not always. It can have more success if it's possible to expel people from the group but that's really straying from the ideals somewhat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2013, 06:02:05 PM
 #207

Even in small groups, it tends to have problems. Way back when, there was a small colony of progressives set up not far from here. They didn't last too long. About all it's really good for is about family sized and even then not always. It can have more success if it's possible to expel people from the group but that's really straying from the ideals somewhat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony
lol... Yeah, Like I said, it usually doesn't last.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 02:52:57 AM
 #208

I'd suggest Voluntaryist, but technically, that describes his position as well.
Does it really? I've always interpreted them as wanting to abolish privately owned means of production by force. Maybe that's just my ignorance though. I can't say I've honestly cared enough to read further into it since it sounds so repugnant to me.
Well, yeah, but they want it to be done voluntarily.

And here, I'll quote Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
Glorious bacon, that's a name that I haven't heard in ages.

Let's say I have extra cheese from goats, and you have extra crackers. Then, I get together with you and say, "Hey, I'll give you some of my extra cheese for some of your extra crackers." Then we trade and we both make cheese and crackers. That was capitalism at work. So unless you're going to be completely self-sufficient and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, how can you possibly avoid it?

No, you have it wrong. If you have extra cheese and I have extra crackers, you give me your extra cheese because work is its own reward and I give you the extra crackers because work is its own reward.

However, if I decide it's more rewarding to drink and gamble all day and end up with nothing, you give me your cheese (because work is its own reward) and we both do without crackers.
Maybe if I reaaaalllllyyy like you, then I'll let you have some of my cheese. Maybe.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!