Libertarian my ass!

[Rampion]

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)

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]

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.

[Rampion]

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:

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]

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:

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.

[Rampion]

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

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:

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:

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]

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]

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.

[myrkul]

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

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:

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:

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

[BlackSheep]

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]

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


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]

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


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? 

[myrkul]

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


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? 

This.

Private property can only exist in an environment where rights are respected, government, by it's very nature, violates those rights.

[Ella]

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).

• What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear )

Theory of Property, same author !

[myrkul]

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).

• What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear )

Theory of Property, same author !

I quote here from the appendices of the Illuminatus! trilogy:

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.)

[nimda]

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]

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.

[nimda]

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]

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]

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]

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.