Topic: 2013-02-09 On Wikileaks, Bitcoin... (Read 3707 times)

Yeah, I think that's right. But it's still an incredibly silly argument. The point that libertarians make is not that voluntary trade somehow magically transforms human nature in a way that eliminates selfishness. The point is that voluntary trade channels "selfishness" in a way that promotes the interests of both parties. The point is that voluntary trade is, almost by definition, MORE "harmonious" than coerced exchange. This is pretty basic stuff. But hey, he really did a nice job taking down that straw man he set up.

Not at all. The point argued, as I saw it, is that trading always pits people against each other. It can not be "harmonious". La-la land, as you put it, is where there is no expectation of compensation. The author doesn't say this is anything other than utopian, they simply make the claim that Libertarian ideology states that free trade between willing participants is harmonious, and concoct an argument to show that isn't so. You can disagree with that, but they're very explicitly not making an argument that direct trade of goods is harmonious and trade involving currency is not.

He has a great following in the US because they are culturally predisposed to agree with his teachings. That was your implication when you used the word "brainwash", and my response was that I'm French, implying I'm not culturally formated to agree with Austrian economics, and yet I conclude that anarcho-socialism is senseless.


My comment about anarcho-socialism was at a fundamental level. The concept is contradictory. You are moving the topic to a factual demonstration like here:


See, you may call this anarcho-socialism but it isn't. This is plain anarchism. It doesn't matter how the guidelines are emitted nor who emits them, individuals are at a liberty to apply them or not. As long as they don't apply it, then socialism isn't effective. The point is, for resources to be spread evenly, it implies those who produce more have to give to those who produce less. If they can choose to stop the hand outs, then socialism isn't effective, this is just an act of charity in an anarchy. If they can't opt out, then the hand outs are compulsory and socialism is indeed in place, because its guidelines being enforced are now functional as rules. Charity is voluntary, socialism is compulsory. Charity != socialism.

The "individualists" you are mentioning are proof of this. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property so it will either attempt to assimilate these individuals or wipe them out.


There are many definitions of collectives depending on how deep you're willing to delve into human interaction mechanics. The one you're giving is a rather high level definition that is the result of a lot of meaningful societal choices. I will settle with a lower level definition for now: A collective is a group of individuals who interact with each other according the same guidelines.

Ok, I think this turned into a politics. Maybe we can get some moderators to split off the thread?

Sure, but in socialism you don't have the right to sell your share or to buy some.  In liberalism, you can.  Shares are then conveniently called "shares" or "stocks".

and von Mises was Austrian. Still he has his greatest following in the US. Which in turn could have had too much influence on someone in France.


I meant that in the context that most socio-economic theories, like the "anarcho"-"capitalistic", have never been tried in practice. In Spain some were, and worked well.


your fallacy is an absolutistic interpretation of socialism.

First, when general assemblies were held, the results were recommendations, not coercive. There was no executive branch or the like.

Second, there were independent "individualists" who lived rather self-sufficiently on the land and essentially bartered with the collectives. They were a minority though, humans usually seem to voluntarily choose to be part of a larger collective.

Third, there were many different regions were people lived out many different flavors of anarchism and tried out different things. Lots of choices.

Fourth, what is a collective after all. A voluntary group that shares resources and risk, much like a cooperative or company if you will. In markets such principles of redistribution exist as well, in the form of insurances for example.

There are rules in anarchism, just no rulers. That's the real difference between anarcho-capitalism and practically everything else.

And parameters.  As a general rule, mechanics need parameters or it just gets ugly.   

nice work, Byron!

You're talking about mechanics, not rules.

First I'm French. Second, historical precedence doesn't validate an action or ideal. For ages, religious fundamentalists have had women stoned to death for adultery. In the civilized world (read the last century), it's only considered a precedent for divorce. That stoning precedes divorce doesn't qualify stoning as the preferable alternative, nor does it make it more sensible.


I don't agree. Anarchism is a set of ideas based on the premise that society can be functional without rules, and that rules are more detrimental than they are beneficial. In that sense it is a guideline, to which you abide voluntarily. Socialism can only exist through rules. By that fact it is purely coercive, so it doesn't support opting out. Under this light, socialism can't use anarchy as its model since anarchy isn't compulsory, yet that is a prerequisite for socialism.


I disagree with this definition. A rule exists if it is enforced. To break the rule means to be forcefully exposed to the punishment. If anarchists were to live under rules, and happened to break one, then they would be presented with 2 alternatives: endure the punishment voluntarily or opt out of the rule. Those conditions are contradictory with the mechanics of rules.

Would this include a rule such as "Ok guys, from now on and during four years, we will obey to XXX" ?

But the issue with anarchism is that the rule is that there is no rule.  It's kind of an oxymoron.  Anarcho-socialism only makes it more obvious.

^ qft

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.

That's great, but you're a modern French not one of the olde timey left-anarchist French.

I'm well aware France makes some very nice right-wing libertarians these days...



http://www.alternative-liberale.fr/presse/060618_JournalDuDimanche_Mademoiselle_Thatcher.htm

/gigacrush énorme

Im french...

The first people called libertarians were French anarchists.

They didn't believe in a minimal "night watchman" state or even private property, in stark contrast to modern libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

It's a confusing concept to Americans, born in the land of liberty, who breathe the sweet air of freedom and historically practice capitalism

However to the benighted French, given their culture's background of communitarian feudalism and tribalism, anarcho-socialism makes perfect sense.

Vive la différence!

Wow... I hope the author of this article is not burdened with teaching the next generation, on any scale because this reeks of pompous celebrity liberal academia which live in my little pony ville instead of reality.

That's typical US-American brainwash. Social libertarianism has more historical precedence than market libertarianism. Watch this docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ

As an anarchist I certainly don't feel I'm a libertarian. I know people who think like me on this topic. I also know of libertarians who are profoundly attached to the idea of government. Simple example: When libertarians would vote for Ron Paul, I would not vote at all. This is yet another strong difference within the loosely defined group that is publicly labeled as libertarians.

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.


The point remains. If we all live in la-la land, trading is fine. As soon as we deviate from the author's settings, trading becomes evil and mankind crumbles.