Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 8. (Read 9520 times)

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 04:03:47 PM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:55:23 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:55:23 PM

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, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

Let's explore this.

Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.

Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:55:23 PM

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:55:23 PM

~~Statism~~ Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.

In that whole "War is peace" kinda way.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

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, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

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.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:32:01 PM

~~Statism~~ Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:21:06 PM

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

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.

Then we could talk literally of the millions upon millions dead upon the mantle of statism.

Statism *is* violence.

Non-statist violence in my life is typified by the occasional minor incident of road rage. That's it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:32:01 PM

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

First, ask yourself who does most of the violence? The really large-scale stuff. Now imagine getting rid of them. Now, all that's left are the small-time guys, petty warlords and the like. One thing: they're seen for exactly what they are: thugs. and they're treated as such.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:32:01 PM

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

Because it will not be seen as legitimate.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:21:06 PM

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 03:27:07 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:21:06 PM

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

Oh, I forgot. Somalia. Of course, what was I thinking? Tongue

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:21:06 PM

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:21:06 PM

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:09:59 PM

Quote from: wdmw on March 29, 2013, 01:09:32 PM

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 29, 2013, 03:09:59 PM

Quote from: wdmw on March 29, 2013, 01:09:32 PM

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: wdmw on March 29, 2013, 01:09:32 PM

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Rampion on March 29, 2013, 02:26:25 PM

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 02:19:21 PM

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" Wink

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.

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 02:19:21 PM

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.

He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops.

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

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" Wink

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

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" Wink

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.

Quote from: myrkul on March 29, 2013, 01:12:15 PM

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."

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...

I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...

Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have to distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

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" Wink

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".

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...

I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...

Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have two distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

wdmw

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100