Libertarian my ass!

[myrkul]

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.

[nimda]

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.

Politics center around one thing: rob Peter to pay Paul.  So the problem is law.

Sure.

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.

I don't believe it is.

Neither do I.

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]

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

[nimda]

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]

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."

[nimda]

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]

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.

[nimda]

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]

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.

[nimda]

What we've got here is a language failure.

[myrkul]

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.

[Mike Christ]

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]

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.

[liberty90]

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 ); 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...  


Sorry for my bad English, but this is important thread and horrific misconceptions, sometimes I must say something

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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.  

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]

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

[myrkul]

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. 

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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. 

Yes, but then how would we be able to tell the difference between us and statists that like general freedom to trade?

[myrkul]

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. 

Yes, but then how would we be able to tell the difference between us and statists that like general freedom to trade?

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.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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.