Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism  (Read 92272 times)

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2006, 02:12:08 am »

If you try to impose this philosophy in regards to my own property just be aware that some of my "personal possesions" are capable of throwing bullets at you very hard   :-* Oh and my right to do so is thankfully enumerated in the New Hampshire constitution.

How clever of you. Why would  you think anyone (or myself) would want to take your stuff? Did I say say anything like that? What could you POSSIBLY have? Where, in the depths of your ignorance, did you see anything I wrote about seizing anybod's property? Were you hallucinating? White Lightning? What? What kind of education did you get in NH?

You got a problem with my politics? Fine. Discuss it like a grown-up without using moronic, childish gibberish. Otherwise I might think you're an idiot.
 
Making stupid threats to new members part of some crazy initiation in this forum? You sound like a closet Republican. What's your problem? Too embarrassed to show your "W" decals on your pickup?

One last thing. Don't you ever, EVER threaten me.
Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2006, 08:54:37 am »

Quote
Poverty is undoubtedly a great evil we should strive to abolish, but I don't think the others are necessarily evils. Inequality of condition is an inevitable result of human free choice and is not an evil in the absence of poverty. Scarcity is an inevitable result of the finite resources of planet earth; the real problem is how to deal with scarcity so that people can still improve their condition.

Thank you Jason, for giving an example on how to respond intelligently and civilly to a post that you might not agree with. I appreciate it.

That being said, you might not be aware of the historical agenda of eugenics that our country has been engaging, as an economic tool.  Look up "Global 2000" and you will see that it was a NSC memo (National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974).  presented to Jimmy Carter written by Dr. Henry Kissinger: and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests.” It says:

(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S." Check out http://www.sf bayview.com/110304/ucregents110304.shtml
for more on this.  This article ends with this paragraph,

Two excellent examples of existing U.S. depopulation policy are, first, the long-term impact on the civilian population from Agent Orange in Vietnam, where the Rockefellers built oil refineries and aluminum plants during the Vietnam War. The second is the permanent contamination of the Middle East and Central Asia with depleted uranium, which, unfortunately, will destroy the genetic future of the populations living in those regions and will also have a global effect already reflected in increases in infant mortality reported in the U.S., Europe, and the UK.

Quote
Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2006, 09:00:35 am »

That being said, you might not be aware of the historical agenda of eugenics that our country has been engaging, as an economic tool.  Look up "Global 2000" and you will see that it was a NSC memo (National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974).  presented to Jimmy Carter written by Dr. Henry Kissinger: and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests.” It says:

Well, I certainly don't agree with eugenics, & the power of the state is the essential ingredient of these frightening scenarios. The U.S. aren't alone in dabbling in eugenics; Sweden admitted a few years ago that it had carried out forcible sterilizations of the "unfit" all the way up until 1972. Eugenics went hand in hand with the early progressive movement's social engineering agenda.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2006, 10:08:52 am »

I'm not the kind of person to be hostile when debating philosophy, but let me just put the following out there. I don't believe that property is theft, and that those of you who make such claims are advocating an abridgement of a fundemental human right. If you try to impose this philosophy in regards to my own property just be aware that some of my "personal possesions" are capable of throwing bullets at you very hard   :-* Oh and my right to do so is thankfully enumerated in the New Hampshire constitution.
For all you Anarcho-capitalists out there please don't take offense that comment isn't meant for you.

Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY

The distinction of property relations built upon government granted privilege (property is theft in Proudhon's world) and property relations built via human labor, use and personal possession (property is liberty in Proudhon's world) obviously went right over your head.

This is a typical knee-jerk reaction by those who refuse to take the time to really understand the distinctions drawn between the distinct meanings of the term "property" based on original appropriation as it relates to equal liberty.

You can't logically square rights to life and liberty with unconditional ownership via original appropriation beyond a certain point in time as scarcity becomes more acute. If you could then the FSP would be home free as left libertarians would be signing up in droves!

The broader left simply tries to address issues of social justice in arbitrary ways because they are clueless to this seemingly insignificant point. Why doesn't the FSP remake itself as a left libertarian project and join with the SVR?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2006, 02:14:38 pm by RalphBorsodi »
Logged

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2006, 11:54:54 pm »

I think the answer to your question is plain as day. Jason himself has stated that "property is essential to liberty." Right-Libertarians really believe this. They also believe Ownership is a Right!  It's just that I simply never understood this...

If there is an objective reality regarding "Human Rights," I've yet to see it. Oh, I know the theory of this concept. The bit about being "endowed by the Creator, basic human rights," and all that jazz. Does the hobo living on the street enjoy the same "rights" that a person who "owns" land? Is owning land-property a basic human right or essential to liberty?  Do they both have a "right" to enjoy the ground beneath their feet, and do enjoy the land as they wish? If ownership conveys liberty, what does the hobo "own?"  If the hobo could amass enough green sheets of paper, he could "buy" rights to the land he desires to "own,"  right? If he has to "buy" Liberty, is it really Liberty? Does the word "Liberty" become meaningless? Is there any way to bring "Liberty" to someone who doesn't "Own" "Property?"

Sorry. Not in the Capitalist Social Contract. The "Rights" you jave are those you can buy. It's alot like Show Business. No Business, No Show. And any Right Libertarians, or Left Libertarians, or NeoLibertarians, or Anarcho-Capitalists who want to bring in a slightly different Capitalist Model, these ones,  in my mind, are little more than Republicans.

I imagine the FSP has to make room or many diverse viewpoints. I don't have a problem with that. Unity in Diversity is why we're here on Earth.





Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

Denis Goddard

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
  • Free the Mallocs!
    • Free State Blogs
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2006, 06:47:34 am »

any Right Libertarians, or Left Libertarians, or NeoLibertarians, or Anarcho-Capitalists who want to bring in a slightly different Capitalist Model, these ones,  in my mind, are little more than Republicans.

You say that as if it were a Bad thing.

I imagine the FSP has to make room or many diverse viewpoints. I don't have a problem with that. Unity in Diversity is why we're here on Earth.

E Pluribus Unum!

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2006, 07:56:54 am »

Quote
I imagine the FSP has to make room or many diverse viewpoints. I don't have a problem with that. Unity in Diversity is why we're here on Earth.

Actually the SOI precludes your view (as I understand it) on the nature of property relations.

Statement Of Intent:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

This allows for anarcho-capitalist ("maximum role") but not left libertarians (individualist anarchists, libertarian socialists, mutualists, geo-libertarians, etc)

As I said (and I believe you agree), you can't logically square the right of self-ownership (not having to be purchased or gifted) with original appropriation because at some future time all locations will be legally occupied (although not physically occupied).

If all the land mass were exactly equal in quality (subject to exactly equal natural external forces - wind, rain, sun, etc) and if we had no way to construct a medium of exchange (money) so that people were naturally restricted to the amount of appropriation - that point would be much, much farther out in the future.

But because the land mass is variable in quality, subject to different natural external forces, and we have the ability to use an abstract medium of exchange to facilitate trade - we are well beyond the point where it is possible to construct a society based on equal liberty, the right of self-ownership and original appropriation as the basis of property ownership.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2006, 07:59:58 am by RalphBorsodi »
Logged

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2006, 11:15:47 pm »

any Right Libertarians, or Left Libertarians, or NeoLibertarians, or Anarcho-Capitalists who want to bring in a slightly different Capitalist Model, these ones,  in my mind, are little more than Republicans.

You say that as if it were a Bad thing.
Why would you say that? You have the Divine Unalienable right to consume as much as you want without taking responsibility for that consumption. What's wrong with that?

Quote
Statement Of Intent:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Ralph, I do agree with you. The above quote doesn't necessarily exclude participation from those (precious few, it seems) brave anarchists who will carry the idea of Anarchy forward. Of course, we might have to wait until oil hits $160 a barrel  before people become mad enough to begin to think of another way to build a society. In the meantime, maybe Jason or The Socialist, or any others will explain their belief that Property is essential to Liberty. I'm all ears.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2006, 11:17:56 pm by kid mongo »
Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

UCCO2004

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2006, 03:48:39 pm »

KidMongo:

Since you are either anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist, at least you differ from other socialists or communists in that you are opposed to the State.  You refuse to make tax slaves, draft slaves, censorship victims, or sacrifice victims of others using the State.  However, your rejection of money and property brings up some important questions:

1)  In a stateless society, how are you going to protect individual rights?

2)  In a moneyless society, how are you going to exchange with other people who produce such things as food, clothing, medicine, and shelter, if you do not have the knowledge or the means to produce all such things yourself?  I know of nobody who is simultaneously a farmer, a tailor, a house builder, and a heart surgeon.

3)  In a propertyless society, how are you going to oppose rape, since not even your body is considered your own property by Proudhon?

Also, not every "capitalist" Libertarian watches American Idol or buys DISH TV, just because advertisers tell them they should; they simply believe it should be legal for people to do so.

--UCCO2004
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2006, 05:41:12 pm »

Quote
Since you are either anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist

He could be an individualist anarchist (mutualist) like me. A free market anti-capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_individualist_anarchism
Logged

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2006, 12:50:26 am »



Since you are either anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist, at least you differ from other socialists or communists in that you are opposed to the State.  You refuse to make tax slaves, draft slaves, censorship victims, or sacrifice victims of others using the State.  However, your rejection of money and property brings up some important questions:

1)  In a stateless society, how are you going to protect individual rights?

I want to thank you for keeping this thread alive. The biggest fear in regarding anarchist philosophy is that the social order would descend into chaos. That roving bands of criminals would terrorize the countryside and spread havoc and mayhem. Anarchism stands for the Sovereignty of the Individual. Political AND Spiritual. By "individual rights," do you mean "Property?" Since we are living under a Capitalist system, I would ask you how this Capitalist system has protected these so-called "individual rights." Once again I will remind you that the Supreme Court has decreed that private property is to be subjugated to the Corporation and the State. Since Our President has called Our Constitution, "a Goddam Piece of Paper," it seems to me that Our Government doesn't serve its Constituents or the ideals or spirit of that Constitution, and only serves the desires of  the Corporate State. The existence of "Money" and "Propertry" creates inequality, and I have yet to read on this thread any kind of justification of how these create "Liberty."

Quote
2)  In a moneyless society, how are you going to exchange with other people who produce such things as food, clothing, medicine, and shelter, if you do not have the knowledge or the means to produce all such things yourself?  I know of nobody who is simultaneously a farmer, a tailor, a house builder, and a heart surgeon.

The fiat money that we exchange are just pieces of paper printed wily-nilly by Swiss printing presses. Instead of make-believe cash, we could institute imaginary "credit" for labor performed. Eventually, the idea of "money" would be forgotten, as the People would find areas of work that would interest them and would naturally work towards  the Common Good of All. Scarcity is manufactured by States for the Elite's benefit. Such Models can be referred as "Novelty Economies." Your previous question asked how "to protect individual rights?"
Well, what do you define as Human Rights? I define it as access to food, water, shelter, education, and health. Money can "buy" these rights if you're adept in the Capitalist system, or "Novelty Economies." In a moneyless society, the People would incline to their natural talents, in accordance to Natural Law.   Life is not Competition. According to Natural Law, Life is Cooperation.

Who knows if it could work? But shouldn't we TRY?

Quote
3)  In a propertyless society, how are you going to oppose rape, since not even your body is considered your own property by Proudhon?
Rape happens in all societies. It is a crime perpetrated by pathological personalities, the same types THAT RUN OUR GOVERNMENT. I'm not familiar with that assertion you make, but I do know Proudhon thought that the "tools of the trade" of person was considered his own "property." Let's go back to my list of Human Rights, " access to food, water, shelter, education, and health." Man has a Natural Right to these things, including shelter. Proudhon:

"It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property. If property is a natural, absolute, imperscepible, and inalienable right, why, in all ages, has there been so much speculation as to its origin? — for this is one of its distinguishing characteristics. The origin of a natural right! Good God! who ever inquired into the origin of the rights of liberty, security, or equality? (What is Property?)"

Quote
Also, not every "capitalist" Libertarian watches American Idol or buys DISH TV, just because advertisers tell them they should; they simply believe it should be legal for people to do so.

Don't take it personally. I was remarking that cooperative anarchists are just capitalists if they insist on reality of Money and Property. Please tell me how they are diff. Are you a Capitalist Libertarian? If you are, please answer these questions>

If Property is essential to Liberty, and Property is only something you can buy, in the Capitalist system,  can something that you buy confer Liberty?
If it Liberty is a Commodity, is it really Liberty?
If a person cannot "buy" Property," how can we confer Liberty to him?
Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2006, 06:20:08 pm »

The real litmus test as to whether or not you are more of an individualist or collectivist anarchist is whether you believe that a person's labor product is their individual property or do you think that collective ownership of labor products is more just?

You might be able to find some sympathy here as a mutualist although you better be pretty darn skilled at attempting to defend the labor theory of value but probably none at all as a collectivist anarchist.

For those interested - the best known US mutualist today, Kevin Carson, defends a modified version of the LTV in the most recent issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies...and then there are a variety of critiques and a rejoinder by Carson.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004875.asp

quote:
"Carson defends the labor theory of value, but in a subjectivized form, holding that the price of a good tends to correspond to the subjective disutility of the labor needed to produce it – since a higher price would be whittled away by competition while at a lower price the good would not be produced at all."
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 07:07:24 am by RalphBorsodi »
Logged

Power Penguin

  • LG Coordinator / First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 383
  • I know where (some of) you live!
    • Protect your property from theft!
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2006, 04:07:13 am »


Quote
Sorry. Not in the Capitalist Social Contract.

This is exactly what separates the men from the socialists. There IS no social contract, man. Just ask Ian on FTL :P
Logged
Concerned about privacy? If so, check out the official Asset Protection Crash Course. How can you afford not to?

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2006, 07:05:23 am »

Quote
Let's go back to my list of Human Rights, " access to food, water, shelter, education, and health." Man has a Natural Right to these things, including shelter.

Not as a positive right, but yes an equal acess opportunity right to derive one's sustenance from the earth so long as when doing that you do not infringe on the equal access opportunity rights of any other individual to the same (negative liberty).
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2006, 01:29:51 pm »

Thought this might of interest to some here keeping up on this thread.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060312131450308

An Anarchist critique of Anarcho-Statism:

Or refuting "anarcho"-capitalism by means of "anarcho"-capitalism

One of the strangest things most anarchists become aware of when they go on-line is the existence of self-proclaimed capitalist "anarchists." Mostly based in North America, this ideology claims to be anarchist while, at the same time, vigorously supporting laissez-faire capitalism.

For almost all anarchists, this seems an utter oxymoron. Anarchism has always been associated with the left, with socialism. While opposing all forms of state socialism, anarchists have always seen themselves as anti-capitalists, as socialists. Both Tucker and Kropotkin considered themselves socialists, as did Bakunin and Proudhon. While they disagreed about many things (such as how best to end capitalist exploitation), all schools of anarchism shared a common opposition to profit, interest and rent and a common root in Proudhon's critique of private property.

The idea that there is a form of anarchism which is not anti-capitalist thus strikes anarchists as extremely strange. The idea of capitalists raising the black flag, the flag of working class insurrection and strikes, is a joke, a joke in extremely bad taste. "Anarcho"-capitalists of course disagree. It is, therefore, useful to give a short explanation of why "anarcho"-capitalism should be called "anarcho-statism" to better show its inherent contradictions.
What's in a name?

The first line of defence of "anarcho"-capitalism is to argue that the dictionary definition of anarchy is "no government." Consequently, as "anarcho"-capitalism wants to replace the state by a free market in defence associations it must be anarchist.

This argument is obviously flawed. Many dictionaries define "anarchy" as, for example, "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)." [1] Needless to say, anarcho-capitalists do not use these definitions of "anarchy." So appealing to dictionary definitions is highly subjective as it involves evaluating each dictionary in turn and discarding those which are inaccurate.

This can be seen from the question of anarchism and socialism. Both Kropotkin and Tucker considered their ideas as a form of socialism. However, using typical dictionary definitions of both would result in a contradiction. Anarchism is defined as "a political theory favouring the abolition of governments" while socialism is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" or "an economic system based on state ownership of capital." [2] Which means that an anarchist could not be a socialist yet "anarcho"-capitalists are happy to call anarchists "anarcho-socialists." This contradiction is enough, in itself, to show the flaw in their methodology. Why should the dictionary be good enough for "anarchy" but not for "socialism"? [3]

As it stands, anarchists have rarely, if ever, argued that they were simply aiming to abolish the state. From Proudhon onward, they have stressed social and economic goals along with political ones. It is no coincidence that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was "What is Property?" rather than "What is Government?" To limit "anarchy" or "anarchism" to just a question of the state means to ignore most of what anarchists and anarchism have aimed for. That is why anarchists generally avoid dictionary definitions for "anarchy" and "anarchism" and argue instead that it is not enough for someone to call themselves an anarchist, their ideas must reflect the anti-state and anti-capitalist principles the anarchist movement has always held.
Who cares what they thought?

That "anarcho"-capitalism abuses the history of anarchism goes without saying. What is strange that they also abuse their own self-proclaimed intellectual forefathers.

"Anarcho"-capitalists generally trace their ideology back to French economist Gustave de Molinari (1819 to1912). Given that anarchism as a political theory and movement was born in France during his lifetime, is significant that he did not call himself an anarchist nor take part in the movement. If he had considered his ideas as anarchist then surely he would have called them that. We can only conclude that it was the existence of the anarchist movement and its ideas that ensured that Molinari refused the label of "anarchist" as he did not consider his ideas part of either.

Others retroactively included by "anarcho"-capitalists in their ideology's family tree are supporters of so-called "voluntaryism." These were 19th century British individualists, supporters, like Molinari, of extreme laissez-faire capitalism. Like Molinari, they did not call their ideas anarchism or themselves anarchists. Auberon Herbert, for example, explicitly rejected the term anarchist. Another, Levy, stated that "no Individualist would every call himself an Anarchist." He also noted that while individualist and communist anarchists disagreed on many subjects "their agreement [on others] entitled them equally to the general designation of Anarchist." [5]

Significantly, Herbert, knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake" and would result in "pandemonium." He thought that we should "not direct our attacks - as the anarchists do - against all government, against government in itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists," aiming for a government "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." [6]

Now, it seems significant that people "anarcho"-capitalists themselves place in their ideological tree, at best, refused to be called or, at worse, explicitly denied being anarchists. They were obviously aware of anarchism and anarchist ideas and saw that their ideas were not similar. Why "anarcho"-capitalists refuse to do the same is lost on anarchists, particularly as not doing so means they have to continually explain why they are not like the anarchists who get in the news or in the history books.

Moreover, it seems a strange form of complement to incorporate someone into your ideology's family tree while also ignoring these people's expressed opinions and say they did not understand what they advocated! Between, say, Auberon Herbert and an "anarcho"-capitalist, I think most people would agree with Herbert on what he thought his ideas should be called.
And the difference is?

cont'd
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 27   Go Up