Libertarian vieuw on property [Archive]

CommunityBeliever

6th March 2012, 13:12

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

The very act of making decisions requires energy and sustenance. In non-egalitarian systems like capitalism, the means of satisfying these basic requirements are privately owned by the bourgeoisie. This means that the bourgeoisie has a means of coercion to use against everyone else, and this is completely incompatible with anarchism. The only way to achieve anarchism is to abolish distinct social relations to production.

Yes they are, because of things like taxes, regulations, etc. Get rid of all that and we'll have a voluntary society. Nobody will be forcing you into a minimum wage job.

You need energy and sustenance to even make decisions, and the bourgeoisie has exclusive control over the means of satisfying these needs (the means of production), so the bourgeoisie can force you into a minimum wage job if they want.

You'll be able to go become a farmer

The finite land area of the Earth (about 148300000 square feet) has already been partitioned off into private property. You can't just go find a plot of land and farm it because somebody else already already owns it.

or a hunter/gatherer if you want

A hunter/gatherer?! Are you insane? The wild plants and animals that are the very subjects of hunting/gathering are constantly being eliminated by industrialisation! Most animals and plants are becoming a part of our wildlife parks. Your idea that everyone can become a farmer or a hunter/gatherer demonstrates that you are completely disconnected from reality.

Night Ripper

6th March 2012, 15:28

The finite land area of the Earth (about 148300000 square feet) has already been partitioned off into private property. You can't just go find a plot of land and farm it because somebody else already already owns it.

Not according to libertarian standards. A lot of the current claims would be considered unowned. You have to use land to own it.

Revolution starts with U

6th March 2012, 17:05

How long must it be unused? A day? Good job eliminating savings.

Prinskaj

6th March 2012, 18:41

Not according to libertarian standards. A lot of the current claims would be considered unowned. You have to use land to own it.
OMG! A relative perception of property from a capitalist?!
Now I've seen everything..

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

6th March 2012, 18:57

Not according to libertarian standards. A lot of the current claims would be considered unowned. You have to use land to own it.

So if you own a building and rent it out - ergo you don't use it - you can't own it? I agree.

Ocean Seal

6th March 2012, 20:42

Not according to libertarian standards. A lot of the current claims would be considered unowned. You have to use land to own it.
So does ownership really exist then. If I leave my house for work does it belong to whoever sneaks in and steals my cheese?

Night Ripper

7th March 2012, 00:18

So does ownership really exist then. If I leave my house for work does it belong to whoever sneaks in and steals my cheese?

What counts as "use" from a libertarian perspective is a little different than that. After all, what if I want to study ecology? I build a fence around the land but I don't do anything to it, just record data. That's still using it even though I'm not touching it.

Revolutionair

7th March 2012, 01:26

What counts as "use" from a libertarian perspective is a little different than that. After all, what if I want to study ecology? I build a fence around the land but I don't do anything to it, just record data. That's still using it even though I'm not touching it.

I study the earth, get off my property.

GoddessCleoLover

7th March 2012, 02:01

Night Ripper; you reject our basic philosophical premises and we reject yours, and when you understand this basic fact you will begin to realize the source of the "communication problem" To put it in concrete terms, I have a basic understanding of the libertarian perspective, but believe it to be manifestation of a class perspective which I reject.

Night Ripper

7th March 2012, 03:42

I study the earth, get off my property.

You can only homestead unowned property.

CommunityBeliever

7th March 2012, 05:33

Not according to libertarian standards. A lot of the current claims would be considered unowned. You have to use land to own it.

What do you mean "use"? Most landowners are going to claim that they use their land in some way.

RGacky3

7th March 2012, 11:41

You can only homestead unowned property.

The homestead principle is totally arbitrary, its basically just made up, also when your done "using" something, what principle is there that you still have exclusive rights to it? Its totally arbitrary, its as valid as royalty having "divine right."

Revolutionair

7th March 2012, 14:01

The homestead principle is totally arbitrary, its basically just made up, also when your done "using" something, what principle is there that you still have exclusive rights to it? Its totally arbitrary, its as valid as royalty having "divine right."

No no, this is different.

You see. America is one nation under God, and if you don't believe in private property, you're going to hell!

this message was brought to you by the CATO institute. CATO, always fair to the exploiting class

Veovis

7th March 2012, 15:13

You can only homestead unowned property.

With enough guns, you can homestead owned property.

Property rights are completely arbitrary.

RGacky3

7th March 2012, 18:07

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

Btw Egalatarianism is not an ideology.

ColonelCossack

7th March 2012, 18:44

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

Are you nuts??? I'm not an anarchist, but even I can see that egalitarianism by definition means that all members of society have an "equal footing", if you will. Authoritarianism implies something quite different. It's like saying that Yellow is Purple.

Now I'm sure that noone can seriously take a view that is so obviously flawed as this, so I don't see how you can be anything but a troll.

Le Rouge

7th March 2012, 18:51

@Night rippaaaa!

Could you fucking write real answers instead of one liners?
Thanks

Night Ripper

7th March 2012, 18:52

Property rights are completely arbitrary.

No shit. All rights are arbitrary. They don't come from God. They aren't objective facts. Is it cool if I murder you just because the right to not be murdered is arbitrary?

Are you nuts??? I'm not an anarchist, but even I can see that egalitarianism by definition means that all members of society have an "equal footing", if you will. Authoritarianism implies something quite different. It's like saying that Yellow is Purple.

Now I'm sure that noone can seriously take a view that is so obviously flawed as this, so I don't see how you can be anything but a troll.

But we aren't all equal. Some people can be more productive than others. By forcing everyone to be equal you are handicapping the most successful. That's what I mean by authoritarian.

@Night rippaaaa!

Could you fucking write real answers instead of one liners?
Thanks

One line questions usually get one line responses. Did you have a specific objection to any particular answer or are you just wasting my time with bullshit complaints?

Tim Cornelis

7th March 2012, 18:56

Equality is a precondition for freedom. The absence of equality implies there are those who rule, and those who are ruled, which, on its turn, implies an absence of freedom.

Homesteading is such a joke. Claiming that I own land because I grew a potato is equivalent to claiming that a sea, lake, or ocean is your private property because you fished in it, or claiming that air is your private property because you caught a bird.

Saviorself

7th March 2012, 19:12

I think it depends on which form of egalitarianism you are talking about and how it is viewed. If you say, for example, "all people are equal", this is a descriptive statement and though it may very well be incorrect, it is not authoritarian. If you say all people should be equal, it is a normative statement but it still technically isn't authoritarian because you aren't forcing anyone to accept or submit to the idea.

Egalitarianism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive because being anarchist implies, at the very least, no one has any right to be in a position of power and control over another person. In essence, this puts everyone on equal footing - at least as far as the right to not be controlled and the idea that no one is of enough worth to allow them control anyone else is concerned.

That being said, and I will probably receive a large amount of insults for this, I do not believe that all life has intrinsic value and that some life is of more worth than others. And it is in that belief that I part ways with the concept of complete and total egalitarianism.

l'Enfermé

7th March 2012, 19:25

Egalitarianism is neither an ideology nor is it authoritarian. I'm sorry but your entire politics consists of making up bizarre definitions for words and pretending that's what everyone believes they mean, which is why everyone here considers you to be a joke.

PhoenixAsh

7th March 2012, 19:28

But we aren't all equal. Some people can be more productive than others. By forcing everyone to be equal you are handicapping the most successful. That's what I mean by authoritarian.

Well that is where you are misunderstanding what egalitarianism is...completely. You are narrowing down the definition of "worth" according to a very specific external definition.

One which is quite arbitrary and certainly isn't all encompassing. In other words the term is situation specific. Meaning that in one situation production may be a very benevolent contributing factor, while in another situation the same productivity is fact quite detrimental. And we haven't even began to scratch the surface of the problems as to wether or not productivity is actually contributing anything beyond a certain set of people.

gorillafuck

7th March 2012, 19:28

no anarchists are actually anarchists in the sense of no authority, whether they're anarcho-communists or anarcho-capitalists. I consider the argument over who the real anarchists are to be a pretty huge joke, tbh. it is different types of anarchists.

Revolution starts with U

7th March 2012, 19:41

I guess I will just never understand why Einstein's genius gives him the right to rule over me.

l'Enfermé

7th March 2012, 19:48

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;2378822

But we aren't all equal. Some people can be more productive than others. By forcing everyone to be equal you are handicapping the most successful. That's what I mean by authoritarian.

[/QUOTE]
Oh, we see. A human's worth is dependent on how productive he is. What rights he has determined by how much money he makes.

Don't you worship Adam Smith and his so-called followers? It's a bit funny that Smith's "followers" don't seem to have ever read a single line of his works. His works actually concentrated on political and economic equality; "free markets" only being a way to achieve a completely egalitarian society. His argument goes that only under only completely freedom and completely free markets can a completely equal society be created.

Isn't it ironic that the man who most carefully analyzed his works(and bourgeois economy and economists in general)was Karl Marx?

Revolution starts with U

7th March 2012, 21:13

Smith specifically States that the prosperous-ness of a society is based on how well off its lowest members are.

Rafiq

7th March 2012, 23:15

We as communists should not be afraid to admit we are Authoritarian. Even our Anarchist counterparts are, very much so, Authoritarian. The proletarian class must exert it's Authority and interests with a iron fist over the class enemy. The likes of Night Ripper, merely will be crushed in the process, like a cockroach. The mentality of our movement: We don't give a fuck what you, a petite bourgeois scum, find moral or immoral about the motivations of the proletarian class. You can complain all you want, preach, all you want, that is not going to prolong the coming storm against bourgeois society.

It, very much so saddens me Anarchists here are arguing with him, not on the basis of defending your class, but on the basis of defending Libertarianism, i.e. (Arguing which is the real libertarianism. It's a useless, largely irrelevant moral argument. Did Spartacus negotiate with the masters of his comrades and himself, as to whether this act of emancipation was moral or not? No, their interests of antithetical, their language, motivation, incompatible. Kings saw it, the bourgeois revolutions, of uttermost ethical abomination, yet they are dead and everyone is happier without them. It is not a matter of why the proletarian class is going to emancipate itself.

Night ripper, you explicitly stated in another thread that your goal was to "coexist", and that "We can have our communes, just leave you alone". Though you miss the point. It is not a matter of what lifestyle we prefer. It is a matter of which side you are on in the class war. Your petite bourgoeis mentality bleeds through your posts. You want to be left alone, but you want the lives of the proletariat to hang by the threads of your will, whether they will have a Job or not, what wages you will pay them, etc. And naturally, whether you find them "moral" or not, this is a contradiction in class interest.

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 00:42

Well that is where you are misunderstanding what egalitarianism is...completely. You are narrowing down the definition of "worth" according to a very specific external definition.

Where the fuck do you see the word "worth" in any of my posts? You don't. You want to know why? Because I didn't fucking say it. If you're going to quote me, at least make sure it's something I said.

Wikipedia gives one definition of egalitarianism, which is the definition I am talking about and the definition I assumed you were talking about. It is as follows:

a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people

The idea that we will ever be economically equal as long as scarcity exists and as long as we each have different views and goals and as long as we aren't all genetic clones of each other, is absurd.

I'm better at whistling Dixie than you are but you are better at computer programming than me. Guess which one of us is going to do better based on that information alone. I'm not making any value judgements.

We all have equal legal rights, the right to own property, the right to not be touched without permission, etc. We don't have equal rights to each others wealth and that's the kind of authoritarian egalitarianism I'm talking about.

Am I opposed to voluntarily pulling lower incomes up? No, of course not. I wish we could all live in mansions, just not at the cost of robbing others.

Ocean Seal

8th March 2012, 01:01

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

Agreed. I think that it is authoritarian to take away power that someone has earned. Kim Il Sung took power through his own hard work to control North Korea, and Kim Jong Il worked hard to maintain that power. North Korea is the ideal anarchist society. After all Kim Jong Il is free to exercise his power however he pleases and whoever feels like it can tell him to fuck off. Seriously leftists who want him to have equal power with the people are totalitarian extremists, they don't appreciate the value of hard work.

Veovis

8th March 2012, 01:05

No shit. All rights are arbitrary. They don't come from God. They aren't objective facts. Is it cool if I murder you just because the right to not be murdered is arbitrary?

Of course, but my being alive doesn't oppress an entire class of people, so there's no justifiable reason to terminate me. On the other hand, your (or anyone's) owning property oppresses an entire class of people who are forced to sell their labor power to you in order to survive.

Tell us again how capitalism can exist without a state.

LOLseph Stalin

8th March 2012, 06:27

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 08:35

But we aren't all equal. Some people can be more productive than others. By forcing everyone to be equal you are handicapping the most successful. That's what I mean by authoritarian.

No one, NOT ONE PERSON ON PLANET EARTH wants to force everyone to be actually "equal" in ability or handicap people.

Infact no one things that everyone should have the exact same compensation.

That is not an issue in capitalism vrs socialism, never has been, its a strawman in its purest form.

No shit. All rights are arbitrary. They don't come from God. They aren't objective facts. Is it cool if I murder you just because the right to not be murdered is arbitrary?

No its not ok.

Most people allthroughout history have agreed that you should'nt murder, so chances are they will be societal consequences in ANY social system.

And it also fits easily under many different philosophies of ethics.

The homestead principle fits under none (at least non coherant), and its just arbitrary.

We all have equal legal rights, the right to own property, the right to not be touched without permission, etc. We don't have equal rights to each others wealth and that's the kind of authoritarian egalitarianism I'm talking about.

The right to own property is not an equal legal right, actually the right is the right to have a claim to property protected by the state, thats what the right really is.

You don't own shit unless you have a state that defends your claim to ownership.

And when you have that necessarily its not an equal right.

Capitalist property is by its very nature is exclusive and restrictive, it does not become capitalism property unless it withholds from someone else what they need, so capitalist property is necessarily not equal.

What your saying is like saying everyone has an equal right to be president.

CommunityBeliever

8th March 2012, 10:06

But we aren't all equal. Some people can be more productive than others. By forcing everyone to be equal you are handicapping the most successful. The productivity of society is based upon the total output of the factors of production. The factors of production include labor and the means of production. It is indeed the case that the productivity of labor varies. Some people (e.g Stephen Hawking) are unfortunately effected with disabilities that reduce their productivity. However, equalising the productivity of labor is not a communist policy. Our fundamental goal is to equalise social relations to production. In capitalist society there are two classes of social relations to production:

Bourgeoisie: the bourgeoisie receives most of the output of production through private control of the means of production and the exploitation of proletarian labor.
Proletariat: proletarians lacks control of the means of production and therefore they depend upon the bourgeoisie for important outputs of the means of production such as food. Therefore, at threat of starvation the proletariat is forced to work for the bourgeoisie.

Most of the benefits in capitalist society go to the bourgeoisie as a result of their class and not their individual productivity. Furthermore, advances in the means of production don't change the relative productivity of the bourgeoisie but they do change the amount of benefits.

The idea that we will ever be economically equal as long as scarcity exists and as long as we each have different views and goals and as long as we aren't all genetic clones of each other, is absurd.

It is not absurd to think that we will equalise social relations to production. Once we have equal social relations to production, then people may be rewarded for their productivity rather then their social class. In this sense, socialism will be much closer to a meritocracy then capitalism ever was.

I'm better at whistling Dixie than you are but you are better at computer programming than me. Guess which one of us is going to do better based on that information alone. I'm not making any value judgements.Computer programming is most effectively organised using open collobarative design (http://www.adciv.org/Open_collaborative_design). This same means of organisation is used throughout communist society, which is one reason communist society will be much more productive with respect to programming.

Am I opposed to voluntarily pulling lower incomes up? No, of course not. I wish we could all live in mansions, just not at the cost of robbing others.What do you have to say about the robbing of the surplus value produced by the proletariat that happens in capitalist society every single day? Nothing as far as I know. You support the theft of the surplus value from the proletariat because it is the bourgeoisie that is robbing the proletariat and not the other way around.

All your notions of robbing, rights, and liberties come from an elitist perspective (I explained this in more detail in Would it be so bad to give 'An-caps' what they want? Post #41 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2377570&postcount=41)). You are clearly an elitist, so please stop fooling yourself into thinking that you are not.

Tim Cornelis

8th March 2012, 15:01

The idea that we will ever be economically equal as long as scarcity exists and as long as we each have different views and goals and as long as we aren't all genetic clones of each other, is absurd.

I love how right-wing libertarians feel compelled to reduce discussions about social equality to biological equality. Social equality simply means no person asserts power over another person, it does not mean, nor is it a precondition, that we expect people to be equally able to all things.

Dean

8th March 2012, 15:43

Night Ripper merely refuses to acknowledge others' points. That's why he's coming up with this absurd hippie ideology surrounding the notion of "use" as if it somehow excuses his endorsement of disproportionate power structures.

I strongly urge members to ignore this childish liberal. It sounds like he just recently learned about libertarianism, and has thrown his emotional center into it to such an extent that he won't allow anything to influence him unless it actively props up his utopian fantasy. His arguments all have previous iterations among other members, who occasionally posted them with more tact, better language and more honesty. Much of his self-righteousness seems to stem from an idea that we haven't heard his ideas before.

And yet, I've heard this bullshit for over 10 years, with the same hysterical attitude. Believe me - not only will you fail to change this child, but in fact you aren't going to learn anything new. He draws on the same bullshit the democrats and republicans use to justify their absurd narratives.

Night Ripper

8th March 2012, 19:20

as if it somehow excuses his endorsement of disproportionate power structures

I don't endorse it just like I don't endorse heroin use. I do think we shouldn't be using violence to stop these things though.

I strongly urge members to ignore this childish liberal. It sounds like he just recently learned about libertarianism, and has thrown his emotional center into it to such an extent that he won't allow anything to influence him unless it actively props up his utopian fantasy. His arguments all have previous iterations among other members, who occasionally posted them with more tact, better language and more honesty. Much of his self-righteousness seems to stem from an idea that we haven't heard his ideas before.

Ad hominem or just plain insulting, either way, irrelevant.

And yet, I've heard this bullshit for over 10 years, with the same hysterical attitude. Believe me - not only will you fail to change this child, but in fact you aren't going to learn anything new. He draws on the same bullshit the democrats and republicans use to justify their absurd narratives.

And again.

Are you here to argue ideas or personality? Nothing I've said here on these forums is original. Yet nothing you say is either. Big deal, I didn't invent math either. Do you have a point that isn't a personal attack on me? You act as if somehow I'm the focus of this debate but I'm not. I'm just one of many that believe these ideas. I expected more from a moderator.

RGacky3

8th March 2012, 21:03

I don't endorse it just like I don't endorse heroin use. I do think we shouldn't be using violence to stop these things though.

Heroin is not a power structure, its not an institution.

PhoenixAsh

9th March 2012, 19:32

Where the fuck do you see the word "worth" in any of my posts? You don't. You want to know why? Because I didn't fucking say it. If you're going to quote me, at least make sure it's something I said.

Unless I am mistaken you reacted to a post I made. Please reread that post. Then read your reply you made to my post...then get off your high horse and answer or argue the subject.

Wikipedia gives one definition of egalitarianism, which is the definition I am talking about and the definition I assumed you were talking about. It is as follows:

I gave you the defnition in my first post. The post you quoted in your reply. So do not backtrack and do not try to deviate from the issue.

If you misunderstood the term and definition of egalitarianism then that is fine and that would have been your reply to my original post you quoted in which I give the definition of egalitarianism. You did not however. Instead you answered with another argument entirely.

The idea that we will ever be economically equal as long as scarcity exists and as long as we each have different views and goals and as long as we aren't all genetic clones of each other, is absurd.

No, the idea is only absurd if the economic system is build around the asumption of unequal rights and the promotion of inequality as a natural way of establishing order. Like capitalism and right-libertarianism do.

But that is besides the point because that is not what egalitarian means in any meaningful anarchist sense. Which is in fact what sparked this debate in the first place...your claim that I can not be an Anarchist because egalitarianism is authoritarianism.

I'm better at whistling Dixie than you are but you are better at computer programming than me. Guess which one of us is going to do better based on that information alone. I'm not making any value judgements.

And as I explained that highly depends on the situation and context. I would be doing awful as a computer program in a whistling contest.

We all have equal legal rights, the right to own property, the right to not be touched without permission, etc. We don't have equal rights to each others wealth and that's the kind of authoritarian egalitarianism I'm talking about.

...egalitarianism is diametrically opposed to authoritarianism. The two can NOT exist in one concept....simply because of the fact that authoritarianism is based on ineqaulity...and egalitarianism is not. *sigh*

But in reality we do not all have the same legal rights nor are they enforced in an egalitarian manner.

Also egalitarian =/ a being the same or as clone. There is a vast worlod of difference and you know this.

Am I opposed to voluntarily pulling lower incomes up? No, of course not. I wish we could all live in mansions, just not at the cost of robbing others.

But some are living in mansions because the are robbing others. So you are contradicting yourself there.

Comrade Jandar

9th March 2012, 19:39

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

edit:
Split from this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/subject-unsubscribe-gate-t168647/index.html?p=2376716#post2376716

Please stop using the word "libertarian." It's only in the United States where that word has become associated with the right-wing. Everywhere else "libertarian" implies anarchism or even socialism.

l'Enfermé

9th March 2012, 19:56

Also egalitarian =/ a being the same or as clone. There is a vast worlod of difference and you know this.

No, hindsight20/20, he doesn't know that. He doesn't know anything.

Revolution starts with U

9th March 2012, 20:30

Honestly, everyone except maybe a select few sociopaths, are authoritarian, in the sense that they believe there are times when the use of force to stop a behavior is justified. The difference is in egalitarian views on force and elitist; I. E. Who should eeild force, and when.

Libertarian views tend to think the common people should weild force against class antagonisms. Elitist views tend to think the ubermensch should weild force to defend society from the rabble.

Night Ripper

9th March 2012, 20:31

Please stop using the word "libertarian." It's only in the United States where that word has become associated with the right-wing. Everywhere else "libertarian" implies anarchism or even socialism.

I'm an anarchist. Do you see me moralizing about drug use, immigration, evolution, etc? No. Because I'm not a right-winger. I'm not left-wing either.

Veovis

9th March 2012, 21:04

I'm an anarchist. Do you see me moralizing about drug use, immigration, evolution, etc? No. Because I'm not a right-winger. I'm not left-wing either.

Honey, you can't honestly be an anarchist because what you're advocating cannot function without a state.

Night Ripper

9th March 2012, 23:12

Honey, you can't honestly be an anarchist because what you're advocating cannot function without a state.

Then so be it. I think you are wrong but I want states gone regardless of the consequences.

l'Enfermé

10th March 2012, 01:26

I'm an anarchist. Do you see me moralizing about drug use, immigration, evolution, etc? No. Because I'm not a right-winger. I'm not left-wing either.
What the fuck does evolution have to do with anything? Might as well put in gravity into your list.

You are not an Anarchist. Anarchism is a far-left form of politics. The entire foundation of Anarchist economics rests on rejection of Capitalism and argument that private property(bourgeois property, the dominant form of property in capitalist societies)exists only through the protection of the State. From Stirner to Proudhon, Bukharin and Kropotkin, to all the Anarchists in the First International and the Anarchists in Spain, the Anarchists and Makhnovites in Russia...anarchism is a far-left, anti-capitalist form of politics.

Anarcho-Capitalism is, to put it short, a form of voluntary statism. Out of all the Anarchists who have ever lived, barely 1 percent of them would not laugh at the idea of "anarcho-capitalism".

Night Ripper

10th March 2012, 03:35

You are not an Anarchist. Anarchism is a far-left form of politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

l'Enfermé

10th March 2012, 03:53

http://notes.tomhenrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/slow-clap.gif

I give up. This guy is a sock-puppet of some Revlefter who is just fucking with us for fun.

Garret

10th March 2012, 12:43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker
However much we disagree with Individualist Anarchism, you simply cannot associate it with the "Anarcho-Capitalists" of today. . Tucker considered himself a socialist. I'd doubt Mises.org or whoever ancaps follow these days support the "emancipation of the workingman from his present slavery to capital".

Tim Cornelis

10th March 2012, 12:53

Please stop using the word "libertarian." It's only in the United States where that word has become associated with the right-wing. Everywhere else "libertarian" implies anarchism or even socialism.

This is a myth permeated by Chomsky. The word "libertarian" means classical liberalism almost anywhere in the world now. This is in part due to the influence of the internet and American predominance over it. (most people learn heterodox politics through internet, usually from American sources, hence using the word libertarian in the American sense).

Just go to wikipedia. Without speaking the language you can see that on any page (Spanish, Dutch, German, Russian) it talks mainly about right-wing libertarianism/classical liberalism.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarismo
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Либертарианство
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarisme

Only the English wikipedia has a more balanced page looking both into left and right-wing libertarianisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

Have you even bothered to read any individualist anarchist literature? Proudhon, Tucker, the vast majority of individualist anarchists advocated collective property. Lysander Spooner is perhaps the closest to an "ancap"/nonarchist, but even he did not appreciate wage labour and advocated self-employment.

Veovis

10th March 2012, 12:58

Then so be it. I think you are wrong but I want states gone regardless of the consequences.

If you remove the state without removing the concept of private property, either an individual or a corporation will rise up with supreme military power and become the new state. I can't believe no one has told you this before.

rylasasin

10th March 2012, 13:38

If you remove the state without removing the concept of private property, either an individual or a corporation will rise up with supreme military power and become the new state. I can't believe no one has told you this before.

Erm, they have, over and over but he just ignores/blocks anyone who tells him.

Veovis

10th March 2012, 13:47

Erm, they have, over and over but he just ignores/blocks anyone who tells him.

I kind of figured that was the case. I just added that last part for sardonic effect.

robbo203

10th March 2012, 14:53

You can't be an anarchist because egalitarianism is an authoritarian ideology.

You claim to be a "rugged individualist". There is a lot of confusion about the term individualism which tends to be conflated with individuality which is not the same thing at all (see Abercrombie et al Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism)

But taking up your point about egalitarianism you perhaps might want to read the anthropologist Louis Dumont - author of Homo Hierarchus , Dumont is not exactly flavour of the month in anthropological circles but one of the arguments of his is about the binary opposition betweeen individualistic and holistic societies. The former is one in which the individual assumes primary value over society , the latter is one in which the opposite is true (Dumont cites the Indian caste system as an example if this)

Point is that for Dumont these two fundamentally different kind of ontologies entail radical differences in the way we relate to each other. Holistic societies entail a hierarchical principle (again the caste system shows this clearly). Individualistic societies entail egalitarianism (this shows itself in religious mythology about all being creating equal in the eyes of god or the idea that we are equal before the law etc etc). Differences in power and wealth are seen as contingent or accidental (think of the role of "luck" in the way people account for their achievements in our casino capitalist society) and do not affect the ontological basis of the abstract individual in individualistic societies: individuals are regarded as all essentially the same at a fundamental level in a pre-social sense. Indeed the individual is helds to predate society in a Lockean sense with society being seen arising our of a kind of social contract. An utterly absurd but essentially bourgeois construction or rationalisation

Dumont has some interesting observations to make about racism for example. He claims that racism arises out of the conjunction of an individualistic ontology and the observed differences between people which attest to the power of the social sphere over individuals in shaping their outlook and as such represents a threat to the autonomy of the individual at some basic level.

Im not sure I would go along with all that Dumont is says here but it does make a kind of sense . He is saying that individualism and egalitarianism tend to go along togther - quite contrary to what you seem to be saying

Night Ripper

10th March 2012, 15:22

However much we disagree with Individualist Anarchism, you simply cannot associate it with the "Anarcho-Capitalists" of today.

Read the article before posting:

Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), a student of Ludwig von Mises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises), combined the Austrian school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school) economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#cite_note-136)

As much as you want to deny anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (it's right there in the name FFS), it is and has its roots there.

Night Ripper

10th March 2012, 15:27

If you remove the state without removing the concept of private property, either an individual or a corporation will rise up with supreme military power and become the new state.

Do you have anything to backup your assertion? It takes a lot more effort to abolish a state 200 years and going strong than it does to stop some upstarts. The fact is, for the state to be abolished in the first place, a gestalt shift is required. People will need to see how statism is based on coercion while free markets and voluntary association aren't. When statism falls out of favor, like slavery did, it may pop up in small isolated pockets but it will never have the former status that it once did. States violate private property more than they protect it. They aren't required.

Night Ripper

10th March 2012, 15:30

I give up. This guy is a sock-puppet of some Revlefter who is just fucking with us for fun.

I'm running out of patience for people that want to talk about me personally rather than the issues. Stop harassing me.

Tim Cornelis

10th March 2012, 16:09

Read the article before posting:

As much as you want to deny anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (it's right there in the name FFS), it is and has its roots there.

Names do not tell us anything, it is content that matters. I am influenced by Marx and Engels, and I took some ideas from them, but that does not mean I can rightly call myself a Marxist.

Your logic is as follows: Rothbard was against the state like individualist anarchists, therefore he was an anarchist. I could very well argue, Rothbard was against the state like Leninists, therefore he was a Leninist. After all, Rothbard argued a political party should seize control (by means of elections) and then introduce a stateless society (nonarchism). Leninists argue a party should seize control and then introduce a stateless society (communism).

Does this mean Rothbard can call himself a Leninist? No. But that is exactly the logic you use to make a case that he, and you, are anarchists.

If we look at the definition of political anarchy as given by Proudhon ("anarchy is the absence of a master") we know that anarchism means opposition to social hierarchy (a master is someone who controls another person). Capitalism thrives on social hierarchy, and is therefore irreconcilable with anarchism.

robbo203

10th March 2012, 17:35

Do you have anything to backup your assertion? It takes a lot more effort to abolish a state 200 years and going strong than it does to stop some upstarts. The fact is, for the state to be abolished in the first place, a gestalt shift is required. People will need to see how statism is based on coercion while free markets and voluntary association aren't. When statism falls out of favor, like slavery did, it may pop up in small isolated pockets but it will never have the former status that it once did. States violate private property more than they protect it. They aren't required.

Lets look at this logically shall we?

In order for your utopian free market society to come about in which everyone associates voluntarily and is not compelled to submit to the authoritarian set up that is the the employeer-employee, they would have to have the means - capital - to sustain themselves independently. This presupposes a massive redistribution of wealth away from the tiny minoriity who, currently, effectively monopolise the means of production to the great majority. How are you going to do that?

Capitalism shows absolutely no sign of even moving in this direction. Indeed, in recent decades inequalities not just in wealth and income but even more so, financial assets, have moved steadily in the opposite direction.

This means that what you actually propose to establish will require you to capture the power of the state to coercively redistribute the means of production for your fantasy world to stand even a snowballs chance in hell of being realised. Capitalist are not going to voluntarily hand over their ill gotten gains for the sake of your free market sentiment and any savvy capitalist will soon enough recognise that what you are advocating is directly against their interests.

Now we communists accept the need to democratically capture the state - not to redistribute the means of productiuon, but in order to convert these means into the common property of everyone- including the ex capitalists who presently freeload off the efforts of the majority in a quite spectacular way. This necessairily entails coercion or force - not in the sense of violence which I think will be unneccessary - but social compulsion. Quite simply, the right of this parasite class to monolpolise the means of production will no longer be recognised or tolerated

You, on the other hand, pretend to eshew coercion and moralise about the state's predeliction towards coercion while saying nothing at all of the coercive powers that an employer daily exercises over his or her employees. The irony is that without coercion you cannot remove this coercion and you are left with an empty vacuous sentiment that is incapable of any kind of real-world application. You cannot have a perfect free market society based on voluntary association unless and until you coercively dispossess the capitalists of their monopoly of the means of production which keeps the rest of us enslaved.

Actually, I would go furher - because communists advocate not the redistribution of wealth as such but a fundamental change in the economic basis of society that will make goods and services freely available to all and put the production of those goods and services on a purely voluntarily basis, this will deprive any individual or group of the kind of economic leverage whereby they could exercise power over any other individual or group. In fact if you want to get rid of the state this is the most, if not the only, certain way of doing precisely that

You, on the other hand would be compelled to redistribute the means of production and such redistribution itself implies some central authority in order to put it into effect. This central authoiry would of necessity be in a rather different relation to the means of production compared with the ordinary citizen - which boils down the fact that the former would be empowereded to oversee and monitor the process of redistribution itself.

Therein lies precisely the potential for corruption and indeed the further growth of the state - ironically all in the name of introducing a so called free market society based on voluntary assoction which would, in any case, require some kind of state-like body to protect and ensure the property rights of it citizerns in a competitive dog-eat-dog world