*gets popcorn*
damn, I missed the start of this one!
Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 7. (Read 9502 times)
Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".
I'm not sure I follow.
Perhaps you would like to explain this in greater detail?
Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".
It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.
Well, that and leech off of others' productivity.
It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.
In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.
And there is nothing contradictory about these views.
Well, aside from the fact that being a bum and not starving kinda requires you to interfere with others.
In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.
And there is nothing contradictory about these views.
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.
Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.
I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO
Quote
The most powerful and elite leaders in Iceland were the chieftains (sing. goði, pl. goðar). The goðar were not elected to their positions, but rather owned their title. The position was most commonly inherited, but it could also be bought or sold. The office of the goði was called the goðorð. The goðorð was not delimited by strict geographical boundaries. Thus a free man could choose to support any of the goðar of his district. The supporters of the goðar were called Þingmenn ("assembly people"). In exchange for the goði protecting his interests, the Þingmann would provide armed support to his goði during feuds or conflicts. The Þingmenn were also required to attend regional and national assemblies.
Not exactly like, and not exactly unlike, the AnCap concept of protection agencies, or de Molinari's free-market "governments". The main thing differentiating it is that there were a limited number of them. I imagine this drove the price rather high, much like a NYC Taxi medallion.
In AnCap, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone from deciding not to have a protection agency, or even starting their own.
The judges, unfortunately, were also limited in number, and it is this fact that ultimately spelled the downfall of the system - they were all bought out by a foreign power. However, their action was very AnCap in nature:
Quote
Once a court decided a party was guilty, however, it had no executive authority to carry out a sentence. Instead, enforcement of a verdict became the responsibility of the injured party or his family. Penalties often included financial compensation or outlawry.
This would likely be handled by one's insurance, under AnCap. No insurance, of course, and it's back down to you or your family.
In AnCap, nothing is stopping anyone from being a judge - or, indeed, as long as both parties agree, anyone being picked as a judge. From Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
Quote
A boy about fourteen spoke up. "Say! Aren't you Gospodin O'Kelly?"
"Right."
"Why don't you judge it."
Oldest looked relieved. "Will you, Gospodin?"
I hesitated. Sure, I've gone judge at times; who hasn't? But don't hanker for responsibility.
However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, "Will you accept me as your judge?"
He looked surprised. "I have choice in the matter?"
I said patiently, "Of course. Can't expect me to listen if you aren't willing to accept my judging. But
not urging you. Your life, not mine."
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. "My life, did you say?"
"Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge
Brody."
He didn't hesitate. Smiled and said, "I accept you as my judge, sir."
"As you wish." I looked at oldest lad. "What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?"
"Oh, no, Judge, all of us."
"Not your judge yet." I looked around. "Do you all ask me to judge?"
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, "Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge
O'Kelly?"
"What? Oh, sure!"
They had something similar in Ireland, except it was a profession, and not something one can just have thrust upon them like that. If there was no Brehon handy, well, you just waited. "Right."
"Why don't you judge it."
Oldest looked relieved. "Will you, Gospodin?"
I hesitated. Sure, I've gone judge at times; who hasn't? But don't hanker for responsibility.
However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, "Will you accept me as your judge?"
He looked surprised. "I have choice in the matter?"
I said patiently, "Of course. Can't expect me to listen if you aren't willing to accept my judging. But
not urging you. Your life, not mine."
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. "My life, did you say?"
"Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge
Brody."
He didn't hesitate. Smiled and said, "I accept you as my judge, sir."
"As you wish." I looked at oldest lad. "What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?"
"Oh, no, Judge, all of us."
"Not your judge yet." I looked around. "Do you all ask me to judge?"
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, "Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge
O'Kelly?"
"What? Oh, sure!"
Having multiple, competing courts ensures that the best justice is served... not by giving the rich decision-making power, but by making those with the best decision making abilities rich.
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.
Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.
I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.
Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.
And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.
State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.I do not disagree on that.
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.
So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.
State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.
You might be surprised.I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".
And because a mutualist/cooperativist economy, not based on private property but on mutual aid, has never existed as a serious option in all American history. I would even say that that type of economy is against US foundational principles.
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.
Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.
Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.
Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. And the ones fighting anarchists where mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain. But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.
I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.
Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.
Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" wouldnt be ridiculous.
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.
Oh, you wanted a personal account? You should have said so. I'm afraid I don't have one for you. However, let me direct you to the tale of Ed and Elaine Brown.Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.
Demand, in the same manner as taxation? Simply put, If I don't agree to an obligation, there isn't one. Nobody could come up to me, for instance, and say, "You owe me money for living here," without my previously agreeing to that arrangement. Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.
Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.
Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.
Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society.
In an anarchich society you would have less crimes because 99,99% of crimes are related to private property. That's pure statistics my friends. In an "anarcho-capitalist" (lol lol and lol) society I'm not so sure you will have less street violence - You will still need police, thus you are not looking at an anarchy: your are looking at a minarchy
I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence" 
Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.
That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".
Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."
I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.
Well, it is relevant because Molinari was contemporary to Bakunin, and I'm very sure that he would never have even dreamt of conceiving a "capitalist anarchism". In fact I'm sure that he conceived his free market laissez-faire contrapossed to anarchism.
Anyhow, we have been discussing facts. Now I would like to give you my humble opinion about WHY North Americans are not shocked by capitalist libertarians or anarcho-capitalists:
For americans, non-US history has not much relevance. So most of US citizens don't know much about "original" anarchism and his foundation, even though it had an enormous impact on history, and millions of people have died while defending (or fighting against) the anarchist ideals. You give much more relevance to a modern and relatively non-relevant intellectual (Rothbard), whose theory has been quite anecdotical in the history of politics. I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example:
If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.
Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi, and insisting on etymology makes it even more ridiculous. Words does not mean what they mean only because of their etymology, that would be a logical fallacy. But from the other side I understand that US is founded on both capitalism and private property, and therefore in your short history you never seriously considered anti-capitalist anarchist theories, for you the "original" anarchism is something marginal that has no relevance at all. Therefore, you are not shocked by someone calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist", even if it's as silly as it can get.
Jump to: