Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: AgoristTeen1994 on March 19, 2012, 11:13:15 PM



Title: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on March 19, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
To all anarchists, both of the market anarchist and social anarchist variety: What IS it with you guys (and gals)? I mean, we both agree the State needs to be abolished, yes while it would be NICE (in some ways) to be able to plan what a free society, would look like, that little problem called "spontaneous order" kind of prevents us from doing so, so why in the FUCKING HELL can't we just cooperate in smashing the state? I mean, for all we know there could be little enclaves of anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-inbetweenism, why don't we decide "too hell with our differences on property" and focus on our true enemy, the state. It's no WONDER we're having such a hard time smashing the state, I mean, aside from all of the problems and obstacles such an endeavor has by its very nature, we bicker too damn much to realize "hey, we're both allies against the state, so how about instead of fighting each other and making jabs at whether the individuals of the other side are "true" anarchists, we smash the state, and then, maybe, just MAYBE we do something like I don't know, letting individuals decide from themselves, which kind of community, an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communist or somewhere in between, said individuals would like to live in, based on what their needs, and priorities are


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Seth King on March 19, 2012, 11:16:20 PM
I'm a bit more optimistic than you are. I see Bitcoin being enthusiastically adopted by anarchists of all stripes. I think it will be the economic glue that binds us together.

If you want to end the state you've got to figure out a way to stop using their money. Without the power to counterfeit their power drops significantly.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on March 19, 2012, 11:23:02 PM
I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just saying most anarchists are making smashing the state harder than it has to be, because they won't "play nice" with anarchists of other stripes.


Also I highly doubt the ancom types will like bitcpin since last I check they hated money in all of it's forms


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Seth King on March 19, 2012, 11:27:19 PM
I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just saying most anarchists are making smashing the state harder than it has to be, because they won't "play nice" with anarchists of other stripes.


Also I highly doubt the ancom types will like bitcpin since last I check they hated money in all of it's forms

I think some of the older farts may not like it(sort of like the LvMI/LRC crowd) but the younger tech savvy generation does.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 20, 2012, 01:22:25 AM
Quote
why in the FUCKING HELL can't we just cooperate in smashing the state?
Not a stable equilibrium. If we had meetings the ancoms would walk off with our stuff.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 20, 2012, 05:42:19 AM
To all anarchists, both of the market anarchist and social anarchist variety: What IS it with you guys (and gals)? I mean, we both agree the State needs to be abolished, yes while it would be NICE (in some ways) to be able to plan what a free society, would look like, that little problem called "spontaneous order" kind of prevents us from doing so, so why in the FUCKING HELL can't we just cooperate in smashing the state? I mean, for all we know there could be little enclaves of anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-inbetweenism, why don't we decide "too hell with our differences on property" and focus on our true enemy, the state. ...

What a great question. A question that I have asked myself many times: if the State is our main enemy, should we not join forces to beat it? I found out there is a rub. We will beat the State by convincing and educating others. We will win, ultimately, in the realm of ideas before we win in the 3d world. Men need an ideology to believe in; and we need to provide the ideology of non-aggression and free-will cooperation.

The side that does not believe in property does not even believe I own my own self. How can we condone that? They don't really believe in the NAP since their view of society needs something/someone/some-group to force people to act as they would have them act.

The market-anarchists believe in non-aggression and free-will voluntary cooperation. We believe that as long as people act in a voluntary manner then "it is all good". If a bunch of folks want to start a commune, then great! Just don't force me to join if I don't want to.

I have an idea. Fine out why the anarchist-communists hate Murray Rothbard and you will have your answer. 

PS: Does anyone have a link to a really great debate on this debate forum on property? (I know there must have been several over the years)


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: dpalme on March 20, 2012, 10:07:54 AM
Can someone please explain to me how in the hell anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism? I just can't seem to grasp that.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on March 20, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
@Mark Stoval: I disagree that anarcho-communists don't believe in self-ownership, or the NAP Leo Tolstoy is a good example of that.. You're argument could be considered a straw man, since you're arguing against a position you believe they have, when in fact, from my experience they don't hold that position at all. As for your claim that their view of society requires someone/something to force people to behave as they would have them act....that is a HIGHLY specious argument. You have absolutely no way of predicting with 100% what a free society will look like, or how people will behave in a free society, for all you know, there could very well be large communes, that work like a family, only on a larger scale...id est, they have "communal" land, but they have private possessions, like books, tools, guns, etc. Plus from my experiences with anarcho-communists, most of them, believe, that natural forces, which could be considered "free market forces" will cause the end of private property. Note Bene most anarcho-communists see a difference between private property, and possession, they see private property as that which you could only claim to own and have protected if a State exists, and they see possession as "owning" something that you actually use.

@dpalme: According to www.dictionary.com there are three definitions of anarchist, we'll go with the first one:

an·ar·chist: noun; a person who advocates or believes in anarchy  or anarchism.

an-ar-chy: noun; 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

derives from the greek word "anarkos" which is comes from "a(n) meaning no) and "archos" meaning ruler, thus no ruler.

Ergo, an anarchist is anyone who desires a society where there is no direct/coercive government, how they want the society to look like is is varied, but so long as they want no direct/coercive government, and propose cooperative and voluntary association of people and groups, then they are anarchists, even if they are incredibly naive and/or arrogant to think that the entirety of an anarchist society will live according to THEIR model of how society should look, though that is a fault many anarcho-capitalists share


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 20, 2012, 02:12:10 PM
@Mark Stoval: I disagree that anarcho-communists don't believe in self-ownership, or the NAP Leo Tolstoy is a good example of that.. You're argument could be considered a straw man, since you're arguing against a position you believe they have, when in fact, from my experience they don't hold that position at all. As for your claim that their view of society requires someone/something to force people to behave as they would have them act....that is a HIGHLY specious argument. You have absolutely no way of predicting with 100% what a free society will look like, or how people will behave in a free society, for all you know, there could very well be large communes, that work like a family, only on a larger scale...

I just don't agree with you here. How can I own anything if I can not own the ground under my feet? If I dig iron out of the ground and that ground is not mine; who owns the iron or anything made of it? If I must please the community to keep my right to stand on this ground; then I am its slave.

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.

The free-market anarchists believe in voluntary trade which makes everyone's standard of living go up. The idea that no one can own anything is not workable. (and you can own nothing if you can not own the ground under your feet)

Or put another way; if there is "communal property" there will arise a committee to control the property and settle disputes. Guess how that is going to work out!

"Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle."  -- Rothbard

See: http://mises.org/daily/2197  The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

Another look at the idea of "anarcho-communists":  Murray Rothbard's article on the subject called Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html



Edit: for clarity


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: ErikAnarchy on March 20, 2012, 03:00:23 PM
There's a group already trying to bring together anarchists of different stripes. They appeal to our one shared goal: the abolition of the state.
I believe they are called "Anarchists without Adjectives"


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: ErikAnarchy on March 20, 2012, 03:01:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 20, 2012, 03:35:26 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 20, 2012, 03:52:29 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: DROI on March 20, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
I'd say anarchist-communists and anarchist-capitalists don't mix well for the simple reason that an anarchist-communist community could exist in an anarchist-capitalist world while an anarchist-capitalist community couldn't exist in an anarchist-communist world.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 20, 2012, 05:22:23 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?
Umm... I made a comment on the nature of property and how it relates to different anarchist schools of thought, and you accuse me of wanting to steal from people?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: LegesNullae on March 20, 2012, 06:12:52 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?

What I think JSNTS is trying to say is that the an-coms don't consider seizing private property to be coercion because they believe privately owned property to have been seized using coercion in the first place. This is basically like how an-caps wouldn't consider seizing state property to be initiation of coercion because state property is established using coercion in the first place.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 20, 2012, 06:51:43 PM
I don't support this letter. ;)

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Seth King on March 20, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
I don't support this letter. ;)

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

The hardliner. Ha!


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Anonymous Infowarrior on March 20, 2012, 08:06:19 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We both should work together to kill those in charge, establish an anarchist state in alaska, and partner with islamic extremists to end US imperialism


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: AgoristTeen1994 on March 20, 2012, 09:13:22 PM
@Mark Stoval: I disagree that anarcho-communists don't believe in self-ownership, or the NAP Leo Tolstoy is a good example of that.. You're argument could be considered a straw man, since you're arguing against a position you believe they have, when in fact, from my experience they don't hold that position at all. As for your claim that their view of society requires someone/something to force people to behave as they would have them act....that is a HIGHLY specious argument. You have absolutely no way of predicting with 100% what a free society will look like, or how people will behave in a free society, for all you know, there could very well be large communes, that work like a family, only on a larger scale...

I just don't agree with you here. How can I own anything if I can not own the ground under my feet? If I dig iron out of the ground and that ground is not mine; who owns the iron or anything made of it? If I must please the community to keep my right to stand on this ground; then I am its slave.

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.

The free-market anarchists believe in voluntary trade which makes everyone's standard of living go up. The idea that no one can own anything is not workable. (and you can own nothing if you can not own the ground under your feet)

Or put another way; if there is "communal property" there will arise a committee to control the property and settle disputes. Guess how that is going to work out!

"Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle."  -- Rothbard

See: http://mises.org/daily/2197  The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

Another look at the idea of "anarcho-communists":  Murray Rothbard's article on the subject called Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html



Edit: for clarity



Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Will on March 20, 2012, 10:21:58 PM
I don't support this letter. ;)

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.

Because political action has done so much good for the country so far ::) It seems ironic to me that you call yourself an anarchist, yet also believe the only way you can achieve your goals is through the state. I anxiously await your paper on the subject, because I just can't comprehend it as is.

We both should work together to kill those in charge, establish an anarchist state in alaska, and partner with islamic extremists to end US imperialism

I refuse to partner with a group of people that believe my death will bring about their paradise.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 20, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
I anxiously await your paper on the subject, because I just can't comprehend it as is.
Oh, don't you worry, it will be our foremost classic in the field...Cardosi and I will be working on it soon ;)


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 21, 2012, 03:01:52 PM
I don't support this letter. ;)

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.
The problem I see is the following:

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind. If agorists are what you describe as cancer, then the entire world is a nuclear wasteland. When most people say you need to be open-minded, what they mean is that they want you to agree with them. But that's not what I mean. I think you actually need to be more open minded in the true sense. I am perfectly willing to accept that some people will honestly find political action to be worthwhile, despite the fact that I think it does nothing. But I won't call them a cancer that needs to be severed from libertarianism as a whole.

This actually brings up an interesting question. How can you anyone claim that one specific tactic is best? Tactics have to be employed by people. Think of people (h) as elements of the set of humanity (H). By saying political action is absolutely best, you claim that

∀h∈ H ∀Z∈A (P(h) > Z(h))
Where P is a function that takes a person as an input and spits out a measure of the effectiveness of political action as an output. Z acts in a similar way, except it can represent any possible activity (the set A).

So for all people, compared to all activities, political action is the best way to be effective? It's trivial to disprove this. I am an element of H, and I know that P("me") < Z("me") when Z takes the function of persuasion at the personal level.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Seth King on March 21, 2012, 03:34:12 PM
I don't support this letter. ;)

Political private property anarchists are the only amongst us who can really do anything, so why bother with the other anti-political scoundrels? (Especially since they want to aggress against private property).

In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement.
The problem I see is the following:

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind. If agorists are what you describe as cancer, then the entire world is a nuclear wasteland. When most people say you need to be open-minded, what they mean is that they want you to agree with them. But that's not what I mean. I think you actually need to be more open minded in the true sense. I am perfectly willing to accept that some people will honestly find political action to be worthwhile, despite the fact that I think it does nothing. But I won't call them a cancer that needs to be severed from libertarianism as a whole.

This actually brings up an interesting question. How can you anyone claim that one specific tactic is best? Tactics have to be employed by people. Think of people (h) as elements of the set of humanity (H). By saying political action is absolutely best, you claim that

∀h∈ H ∀Z∈A (P(h) > Z(h))
Where P is a function that takes a person as an input and spits out a measure of the effectiveness of political action as an output. Z acts in a similar way, except it can represent any possible activity (the set A).

So for all people, compared to all activities, political action is the best way to be effective? It's trivial to disprove this. I am an element of H, and I know that P("me") < Z("me") when Z takes the function of persuasion at the personal level.

Is somebody taking a discreet mathematics course this semester?  ;)


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 21, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?

What I think JSNTS is trying to say is that the an-coms don't consider seizing private property to be coercion because they believe privately owned property to have been seized using coercion in the first place. This is basically like how an-caps wouldn't consider seizing state property to be initiation of coercion because state property is established using coercion in the first place.

Does it matter if the ancom’s belief is not true, and the ancap’s belief is true?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind.
;)



Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 21, 2012, 08:20:34 PM
Is somebody taking a discreet mathematics course this semester?  ;)
No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.

You are so emotionally attached to the political rothbardian approach that you will never change your mind.
;)


What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...
You didn't deconstruct my argument. My wink was merely because I felt your statement is funny. Political action (which includes things like teaching people, etc.) is the only way to get things done Liberty-wise. The black market is just a part of life; black markets do no more to help than any other market exchanges, presuming that we're not talking about revolutionary force against the State (i.e., another form of political action). Coups have overthrown the state (political action). Men have educated themselves and others on Liberty for revolution (like the American Revolution). That was political action too. You're assuming that I'm defining political action extremely narrowly. Not at all. It includes things like party politics, revolutions, counterrevolutions, populace pressure, coup d'états, ideological converting, party cadre structures, etc. etc. These are the only ways to make change; the Marxists, for one thing, have demonstrated how Power can be revolutionized to an ideology. Classical Liberals have demonstrated a revolution against Power, which succeeded in bringing about the Industrial Revolution even. So politics are as fundamental to Liberty -- and always have been -- as butter is to bread. Black market exchanges (eg, want some weed?) do no more to bring down the State than legal exchanges. It's just all the leftist sectarians who are against politics, holding us back.

I stand by my statement: political action is one of the only courses of action to take for Liberty (that makes sense).


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 09:47:32 PM
No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.
As an Austrian, you know someone is prevaricating when they are using math and applying it to human action. (By the way, I'm skilled in calculus myself).


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 10:33:13 PM
I should say, in a democratic (or representative republic) system, unfortunately only party politics are going to work, rather than some of the other stuff I mentioned. Though education et al. are important too. As Rothbard writes

Quote
More important, I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action.  Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up.  Violent revolution will not work in a democratic political system.  Konkinian agorism is no answer, as I have shown above.  Education in liberty is of course vital, but it is not enough; action must also be taken to roll back the state, specifically to repeal State laws. Like price control or the withholding tax.  Or even like marijuana laws. Despite their widespread nonenforcement, there are always some people who get cracked down on, especially if the police wish to frame them for other reasons.  Tax rebels are admirable, but only in “micro” terms; the taxes are still there, and the wage-earners pay them.  Tax rebellion is not a strategy for victory. Single issue lobbying groups (e.g. antidraft organizations, taxpayer organizations, gold standard groups, etc.) are fine and admirable, but they do not complete the job.  For two basic reasons: (a) because they are single-issue, and therefore cannot educate anyone in libertarianism across the board, and (b) because they cannot do the vital job of repealing the statist laws.  They can only urge the repeal of the draft, for example; they can’t actually do the repealing.  Why should we cut ourselves off from this necessary and vital step of doing the repealing?  Of course if one believes with Bob LeFevre that it is equally immoral to repeal as to impose the draft, then the repeal of anything is out of the question. But I will shout hosannahs for any repeal of statism, and do not concern myself with the “coercion” of those who’d like to keep the draft and are deprived of it.



Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 21, 2012, 11:02:29 PM
What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...
You didn't deconstruct my argument. My wink was merely because I felt your statement is funny. Political action (which includes things like teaching people, etc.) is the only way to get things done Liberty-wise. The black market is just a part of life; black markets do no more to help than any other market exchanges, presuming that we're not talking about revolutionary force against the State (i.e., another form of political action). Coups have overthrown the state (political action). Men have educated themselves and others on Liberty for revolution (like the American Revolution). That was political action too. You're assuming that I'm defining political action extremely narrowly. Not at all. It includes things like party politics, revolutions, counterrevolutions, populace pressure, coup d'états, ideological converting, party cadre structures, etc. etc. These are the only ways to make change; the Marxists, for one thing, have demonstrated how Power can be revolutionized to an ideology. Classical Liberals have demonstrated a revolution against Power, which succeeded in bringing about the Industrial Revolution even. So politics are as fundamental to Liberty -- and always have been -- as butter is to bread. Black market exchanges (eg, want some weed?) do no more to bring down the State than legal exchanges. It's just all the leftist sectarians who are against politics, holding us back.

I stand by my statement: political action is one of the only courses of action to take for Liberty (that makes sense).
Your statement was deconstructed. I converted your sentence "In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement," into a propositional statement that reflects your stance, and I showed that it is false. The only thing you can do is challenge the way I made the conversion. The reasoning I made is 100% accurate. The statement was shown to be false.

Saying people who oppose voting should splinter off from the liberty movement is absolutely absurd, and that's what brought about this confrontation. People need to be called out for making ridiculous claims. In return, I expect that I would be called out as well, that's what the forum is for. If we aren't learning from each other, then what are we doing?

As for the claim that politics helped spur the industrial revolution, I disagree. Most of what I've studied involves political changes that were just reacting to the inevitable. The politics just changed to reflect the underlying changes that were occurring. The politics were epiphenomenal. For a modern day illustration you could think about RP: Ron Paul couldn't do anything useful unless people already wanted freedom, in which case we would have better options.

Also, the broad definition of political action you introduced to include conversion does not make sense. That's my area of focus, and I find political action to be futile in almost all instances.

No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.
As an Austrian, you know someone is prevaricating when they are using math and applying it to human action. (By the way, I'm skilled in calculus myself).
There is nothing wrong with using formal logic (math) to analyze the truth value of claims. Not only is it not wrong, it is the most illustrative way of thinking I have ever encountered.
PS: Predicate calculus has nothing to do with the tangent line problem, nor the area problem (likely what you are claiming to have background in). It involves thinking of the world in terms of non-continuous functions. In my example, I thought about measuring effectiveness, and noting that it depends on the person. Nothing anti-austrian about it. But even if it was anti-austrian, that wouldn't matter. That's part of your problem. Anything that isn't rothbardian is automatically rejected. It's almost a cult-like obsession. A good example of this (other than this thread) was when you said you wanted to write something "disproving" mutualism before you even knew what it represented. Classic symptoms of a religion. Rothbard isn't god.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 11:11:31 PM
OK. On the math point: http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp

Human action cannot be quantified. If you read Man, Economy, and State, you will find the reasoning for this absolute claim. Your math claims are just as valid to me as the Keynesians. That is: not.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 11:17:42 PM
Saying people who oppose voting should splinter off from the liberty movement is absolutely absurd, and that's what brought about this confrontation.
Rothbard disproved your line of thought long ago: http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

Brilliant article by the way, and not ridiculous claims. And, yes, someday when I have more influence, I'd like to split the anti-political sectarian left from the movement. At least that's my current stance.

Quote
Also, the broad definition of political action you introduced to include conversion does not make sense. That's my area of focus, and I find political action to be futile in almost all instances.
Oh. I'm talking about not only converting people ideologically, but spurning them to political action as well. If conversions are not going to spurn more people to political action, then it's worthless to do anything in the first place (sectarianism).

Classic symptoms of a religion. Rothbard isn't god.
False definition of religion/god. Inapplicable.

Quote
A good example of this (other than this thread) was when you said you wanted to write something "disproving" mutualism before you even knew what it represented.
Someone ASKED me if I could do an article on disproving mutualism. I said, yes, that could be a potentially great idea. I just put it on the list. It's not like I'm going to do it before I read it.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 21, 2012, 11:26:34 PM
Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate. You and your leftism can go take a hike. ;D


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 22, 2012, 01:04:58 AM
OK. On the math point: http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp

Human action cannot be quantified. If you read Man, Economy, and State, you will find the reasoning for this absolute claim. Your math claims are just as valid to me as the Keynesians. That is: not.
Instead of investigating, you again cite the holy book.

You are taking a very narrow definition of math. Propositional logic falls under the umbrella. I can assure you that this is not what MES is referring to. To equate what I'm talking about with Keynesianism shows you don't understand what I'm talking about. Math is the purest form of reasoning that we can ever work with. Mises strove to make economics math-like, in the sense that it was completely rigorous in the application of axioms to derive theorems. While this goal was a little bit too ambitious, he ended up doing something useful, and so I respect him for that. Anyways, the point is that even Mises understood the philosophy of math. When people at the mises institute complain about math in economics, what they are referring to is building complex models of human behavior with the hopes that we can plan an economy. That has nothing to do with math in the philosophical sense. That is just an application. When I go and find the truth value of a statement, there is nothing anti-austrian about it. I have to repeat myself and say that it wouldn't matter if it did. Austrianism is not the benchmark that we use to judge the validity of an idea. That would be the same as saying that you judge the validity of ideas based upon how well it meshes with your current ideas. Unfortunately that is what I have accused you of doing in prior posts, and the whole reason I started this discussion. It's something I've observed, and waited for an opportunity to confront you over. The comment about splitting the movement was an appropriate time. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am trying to make you uncomfortable with the hope that it will encourage you to think about what I'm saying. Dissonance is painful, but important to experience.

side note: As for human action not being quantifiable, that has nothing to do with the above, but I would like to challenge that as well. I'd say that no human today can quantify the decision-making process, but it's incorrect to claim that it is impossible to do so. The brain is just a biological computer that takes inputs and returns outputs. Deterministic, quantifiable.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Rothbardian on March 22, 2012, 02:12:34 AM
Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 22, 2012, 06:15:58 AM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?
Umm... I made a comment on the nature of property and how it relates to different anarchist schools of thought, and you accuse me of wanting to steal from people?

Well, someone up there in the exchange made the claim that if they don't believe in my right to my own stuff they felt like they could just take it. Or at least that is the sure outcome of what you said.

Seems like your "anarchy" is just roving gangs stealing what they want but hollering that they are not "thieves" since they don't "honor" your right to own anything. What next? Not even the right to own your own body? This is not free-will, voluntary, mutual exchange and cooperation --- it is thuggery.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Will on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM
Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.

You can't really have expected to get away calling agorism a cancer that needs to be cut out of the movement on a forum full of agorists without someone objecting. You certainly were asking for it.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 22, 2012, 08:27:24 AM
... You can't really have expected to get away calling agorism a cancer that needs to be cut out of the movement on a forum full of agorists without someone objecting. You certainly were asking for it.

These labels really get in the way, don't they? I always only want to know: "do you believe in free-will, voluntary cooperation among men with no use of aggression to control them"? If so, we can talk!


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 22, 2012, 12:40:08 PM
Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.
I was afraid this might happen. You would rather ignore me and enjoy the safety that cult worship affords you. Regardless, I dispelled a few myths about austrian school economics and other subjects for the benefit of others who read the thread. You can ignore it all. All I can hope is that I will help other, more open-minded people to grow beyond the rothbardian stage of anarchist thought.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 22, 2012, 12:46:08 PM
If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.
So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?
Umm... I made a comment on the nature of property and how it relates to different anarchist schools of thought, and you accuse me of wanting to steal from people?

Well, someone up there in the exchange made the claim that if they don't believe in my right to my own stuff they felt like they could just take it. Or at least that is the sure outcome of what you said.

Seems like your "anarchy" is just roving gangs stealing what they want but hollering that they are not "thieves" since they don't "honor" your right to own anything. What next? Not even the right to own your own body? This is not free-will, voluntary, mutual exchange and cooperation --- it is thuggery.

I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 22, 2012, 02:27:55 PM
... I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

Then the "anarchy" you describe is not anarchy. It is domination of the majority by a minority as surely as Stalinism is/was. Besides the historical examples of the unworkable mess that arises when something is "owned by everyone"; we have the entire trust of Austrian economics against it as well.

The problem is that I know how the word "Liberal" came to mean socialism and now I have to put up with those who want to have a ruling council and call that anarchy! George Orwell call your office. (white courtesy phone please)



Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 22, 2012, 02:43:14 PM
True, if you believe in planning councils, that's not anarchy. Most people who call themselves anarcho-communists are actually democratic socialists. I still stand by that. But anti-propertarianism is not inherently or necessarily inconsistent with anarchism. History can't prove or disprove it, in the same way that history cannot prove or disprove whether market anarchism is anarchism.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Will on March 22, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote
These labels really get in the way, don't they? I always only want to know: "do you believe in free-will, voluntary cooperation among men with no use of aggression to control them"? If so, we can talk!

Certainly true, labels kind of are a double edged sword in this respect. Also, I don't think any AnComm is going to disagree with your second statement, at least thats what I gather from my Kropotkin obsessed friend (sadly he's the only other anarchist I know IRL...). Its the Marxists and especially the Trotskyists that want to force communism on you for your 'own good.'


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Mark Stoval on March 23, 2012, 06:04:38 AM
... Its the Marxists and especially the Trotskyists that want to force communism on you for your 'own good.'

It would be great if they would just call themselves "Marxists" or "Trotskyists" rather than claim to be anarchists. If you have some "ruling counsel" then you have "rulers". Can they not see that? (or maybe they do and don't care to admit it?)

I can also say that anyone who wants to use force on you "for your own good" does not really have your own good in mind.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 23, 2012, 09:32:12 AM
... Its the Marxists and especially the Trotskyists that want to force communism on you for your 'own good.'

It would be great if they would just call themselves "Marxists" or "Trotskyists" rather than claim to be anarchists. If you have some "ruling counsel" then you have "rulers". Can they not see that? (or maybe they do and don't care to admit it?)

I can also say that anyone who wants to use force on you "for your own good" does not really have your own good in mind.
People use force to enforce property rights. In a world where all land is claimed, they rule over you if you don't inherit land from your family. And most land was acquired through anti-free market means. You could think of the state as being free market. Free market in the sense that it owns all the land. So all its demands on us are justified. See? Who's right and who's wrong comes down to how you define just claims on property. I'm not endorsing ancom, but I'm trying to explain why it's arbitrary who's right or wrong, what's real anarchism, and what's not.

There is some shred of truth in every philosophy other than market anarchism. Extract that little bit, even if it's just one or two thoughts.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 23, 2012, 11:36:15 AM
People use force to enforce property rights. In a world where all land is claimed, they rule over you if you don't inherit land from your family. And most land was acquired through anti-free market means. You could think of the state as being free market. Free market in the sense that it owns all the land. So all its demands on us are justified. See? Who's right and who's wrong comes down to how you define just claims on property. I'm not endorsing ancom, but I'm trying to explain why it's arbitrary who's right or wrong, what's real anarchism, and what's not.

There is some shred of truth in every philosophy other than market anarchism. Extract that little bit, even if it's just one or two thoughts.

From Stephan Kinsella's "What Libertarianism Is":

"The answer must also take into account the presupposed goals of those seeking this answer: rules that permit conflict-free use of resources. For this reason, the answer cannot be whoever has the resource or whoever is able to take it is its owner. To hold such a view is to adopt a might-makes-right system, where ownership collapses into possession for want of a distinction.[22] Such a system, far from avoiding conflict, makes conflict inevitable.[23]

Instead of a might-makes-right approach, from the insights noted above it is obvious that ownership presupposes the prior-later distinction: whoever any given system specifies as the owner of a resource, he has a better claim than latecomers.[24] If he does not, then he is not an owner, but merely the current user or possessor. If he is supposed an owner on the might-makes-right principle, in which there is no such thing as ownership, it contradicts the presuppositions of the inquiry itself. If the first owner does not have a better claim than latecomers, then he is not an owner, but merely a possessor, and there is no such thing as ownership.

More generally, latecomers' claims are inferior to those of prior possessors or claimants, who either homesteaded the resource or who can trace their title back to the homesteader or earlier owner.[25] The crucial importance of the prior-later distinction to libertarian theory is why Professor Hoppe repeatedly emphasizes it in his writing.[26]"
http://mises.org/daily/3660


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 23, 2012, 11:48:11 AM
I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

I’ve observed that you mix up 2 different issues on this subject. Whether or not the committing of a particular act is moral, is a separate issue from whether or not a particular act is the initiation of force or aggression. Morals are not objective, I agree; but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objectively defined.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Will on March 23, 2012, 04:39:38 PM
It would be great if they would just call themselves "Marxists" or "Trotskyists" rather than claim to be anarchists. If you have some "ruling counsel" then you have "rulers". Can they not see that? (or maybe they do and don't care to admit it?)

Mostly they do. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by ruling counsels, the traditional perspective on counsels is that anyone who is affected by its decisions has a say in it. So there isn't a whole other class of representative rulers. Generally they are some sort of syndicalist so they believe these councils should be mostly at an individual business level. Sure its probably democratic, so it is oppression by the majority, but the anarchist version is completely voluntary so it is not all that unlike our PDAs.

I don't have a problem with the AnComms philosophically, but there is just no way communism could survive economically. I have a feeling that a truly free version would evolve into some sort of mutualism.

Quote
I can also say that anyone who wants to use force on you "for your own good" does not really have your own good in mind.

Certainly, that's why I put it in quotes, those are Trotsky's exact words. He was one sick elitist bastard.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 23, 2012, 08:12:37 PM
I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

I’ve observed that you mix up 2 different issues on this subject. Whether or not the committing of a particular act is moral, is a separate issue from whether or not a particular act is the initiation of force or aggression. Morals are not objective, I agree; but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objectively defined.
Sorry if I'm mixing things up, blending concepts or something like that. My mistake. You are right, you are describing two different things. Morals are not objective, I'm glad we agree. As for acts being objectively defined...Definitions are made with words, and words are merely attempts at describing concepts. For practical purposes we can usually assume words are objectively defined....without this assumption we couldn't have conversations. But as we find all the time, disagreements often stem from different understandings of some word. Ha. I wonder if our understandings of objective match up? From what I've just described, would you say I think acts can be objectively defined?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 27, 2012, 04:14:43 PM
I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

I’ve observed that you mix up 2 different issues on this subject. Whether or not the committing of a particular act is moral, is a separate issue from whether or not a particular act is the initiation of force or aggression. Morals are not objective, I agree; but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objectively defined.
Sorry if I'm mixing things up, blending concepts or something like that. My mistake. You are right, you are describing two different things. Morals are not objective, I'm glad we agree. As for acts being objectively defined...Definitions are made with words, and words are merely attempts at describing concepts. For practical purposes we can usually assume words are objectively defined....without this assumption we couldn't have conversations. But as we find all the time, disagreements often stem from different understandings of some word. Ha. I wonder if our understandings of objective match up? From what I've just described, would you say I think acts can be objectively defined?

I miswrote a bit in my last sentence; I should have written “but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objective".

If someone acquired land for use, without the use of force, directly or indirectly, and then an outsider forcibly takes it from them, it seems pretty objective to me, that the outsider initiated the use of force; and any attempt by the prior land possessor to resist the invaders force was not an initiation of the use of force. That’s not to say there aren’t situations where it may be difficult to determine if someone’s land wasn’t acquired, at least indirectly, without the use of force. But the communist belief that all “property is theft” is a very different matter.



Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: helio on March 27, 2012, 10:03:50 PM
Very interesting thread.

My own two cents is, yes, we should team up with the anarcho-socialists and use them as cannon fodder.  They are so good at getting arrested and filling up jails and court dockets...

Seriously though, I'm beginning to think that socialism is a weapon to be pointed at the statist system.  Socialism is poison.  Alittle bit and the patient just gets sluggish, too much, the patient dies.

The masses respond to the socialist message.  Maybe what this civilization needs is a massive injection of socialism to cure it of any illusions of its grandeur.

As to Rothbardian's desire for political action, I can see using political action to inject populist socialist absurdities into the polity could be very effective.  Why, if a platform of doubling old people's welfare and quadrupling education, and forgiving all student loans was introduced by a believable party, then it would reduce the lifespan of the present state drastically.   

And I can easily see anarcho-socialists getting on board with such a movement, perhaps. 


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 27, 2012, 10:42:53 PM
I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

I’ve observed that you mix up 2 different issues on this subject. Whether or not the committing of a particular act is moral, is a separate issue from whether or not a particular act is the initiation of force or aggression. Morals are not objective, I agree; but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objectively defined.
Sorry if I'm mixing things up, blending concepts or something like that. My mistake. You are right, you are describing two different things. Morals are not objective, I'm glad we agree. As for acts being objectively defined...Definitions are made with words, and words are merely attempts at describing concepts. For practical purposes we can usually assume words are objectively defined....without this assumption we couldn't have conversations. But as we find all the time, disagreements often stem from different understandings of some word. Ha. I wonder if our understandings of objective match up? From what I've just described, would you say I think acts can be objectively defined?

I miswrote a bit in my last sentence; I should have written “but acts (or types of acts) certainly can be objective".

If someone acquired land for use, without the use of force, directly or indirectly, and then an outsider forcibly takes it from them, it seems pretty objective to me, that the outsider initiated the use of force; and any attempt by the prior land possessor to resist the invaders force was not an initiation of the use of force. That’s not to say there aren’t situations where it may be difficult to determine if someone’s land wasn’t acquired, at least indirectly, without the use of force. But the communist belief that all “property is theft” is a very different matter.
I like this post, because there is a progression to it. We start out by saying that they acquired the land without force. Someone else uses force to take it. We conclude the outsider used force. When stated in these simple terms it's tautological. Which makes what you wrote after all the more important, when you said there are situations where it's difficult to determine whether or not the assumptions we made before were satisfied. A lot of the time, you can be pretty confident you know who aggressed, but not always. The fact that we don't always know is why we can't say our measure is objective.....it's not well defined. The best we can do is develop a somewhat fuzzy understanding of some of the properties of the function we are thinking about, and then try to "figure it out" in the "obvious" cases. But there is not an algorithm we can write to determine who is the aggressor.

Just because our best judgment "works" in certain cases, that is, almost all of us agree, doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. So even the seemingly obvious cases aren't truly objective, when you try to think about cases in the real world. The only ones that objectively work are those that are defined tautologically, as in the original case...but that isn't a real world example.


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 28, 2012, 05:11:43 AM

I like this post, because there is a progression to it. We start out by saying that they acquired the land without force. Someone else uses force to take it. We conclude the outsider used force. When stated in these simple terms it's tautological. Which makes what you wrote after all the more important, when you said there are situations where it's difficult to determine whether or not the assumptions we made before were satisfied. A lot of the time, you can be pretty confident you know who aggressed, but not always. The fact that we don't always know is why we can't say our measure is objective.....it's not well defined. The best we can do is develop a somewhat fuzzy understanding of some of the properties of the function we are thinking about, and then try to "figure it out" in the "obvious" cases. But there is not an algorithm we can write to determine who is the aggressor.

Just because our best judgment "works" in certain cases, that is, almost all of us agree, doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. So even the seemingly obvious cases aren't truly objective, when you try to think about cases in the real world. The only ones that objectively work are those that are defined tautologically, as in the original case...but that isn't a real world example.


Who initiated the use of force between the two parties, isn’t predicated on “If someone acquired land for use, without the use of force, directly or indirectly”.  The prior-later distinction doesn’t require it, and in no way is it invalidated by the existence of difficult to determine cases, which seems to be your logic.  

Also, I never defined objective as “EVERYONE agrees”, and don’t; such a definition is essentially meaningless, ISTM. If someone believes the earth is flat, is it not objective that it's essentially round? What does "EVERYONE" agree on?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 28, 2012, 08:17:15 AM

I like this post, because there is a progression to it. We start out by saying that they acquired the land without force. Someone else uses force to take it. We conclude the outsider used force. When stated in these simple terms it's tautological. Which makes what you wrote after all the more important, when you said there are situations where it's difficult to determine whether or not the assumptions we made before were satisfied. A lot of the time, you can be pretty confident you know who aggressed, but not always. The fact that we don't always know is why we can't say our measure is objective.....it's not well defined. The best we can do is develop a somewhat fuzzy understanding of some of the properties of the function we are thinking about, and then try to "figure it out" in the "obvious" cases. But there is not an algorithm we can write to determine who is the aggressor.

Just because our best judgment "works" in certain cases, that is, almost all of us agree, doesn't mean that EVERYONE agrees. So even the seemingly obvious cases aren't truly objective, when you try to think about cases in the real world. The only ones that objectively work are those that are defined tautologically, as in the original case...but that isn't a real world example.


Who initiated the use of force between the two parties isn’t predicated on “If someone acquired land for use, without the use of force, directly or indirectly”.  The prior-later distinction doesn’t require it, and in no way is it invalidated by the existence of difficult to determine cases, which seems to be your logic.
You seem to be putting a NOT in front of what I wrote, and I'm not sure why.

Quote
Also, I never defined objective as “EVERYONE agrees”, and don’t; such a definition is essentially meaningless, ISTM. If someone believes the earth is flat, is it not objective that it's essentially round? What does "EVERYONE" agree on?

I'm saying you have nothing else to go off. What criterion do we use to objectively decide who is the aggressor? If we had objective criteria, even the difficult to determine cases would have clear, definitive answers. Since we don't have criteria, even the cases that seem simple only have general agreement as the criterion to work with. What else do we have?


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: Tom J on March 29, 2012, 12:59:16 AM

You seem to be putting a NOT in front of what I wrote, and I'm not sure why.
...

I'm saying you have nothing else to go off. What criterion do we use to objectively decide who is the aggressor? If we had objective criteria, even the difficult to determine cases would have clear, definitive answers. Since we don't have criteria, even the cases that seem simple only have general agreement as the criterion to work with. What else do we have?


“Everyone agrees” is nothing to “go off of”. It's not known if or what “everyone agrees” about.  You didn’t answer my question: is it objective that the earth is essentially round, and not flat, if not "everyone agrees" that's the case? Does it matter if “everyone agrees” that George Washington was the first President of the US, or if "everyone agrees" the earth orbits the sun?

The criterion is the prior-later distinction mentioned in my earlier post, with the quote by Stephan Kinsella. Evidence or proof is looked at, and a judgement is made about whether or not the criterion is met. Legal bodies usually help in that regard, some better than others. And by “difficult to determine cases”, I had in mind situations where the facts were hard or impossible to determine due to destruction of evidence, or something else; not an inapplicability of the prior-later distinction.  

Furthermore, you may have read something into what I wrote, I didn’t intend to convey. What you’re calling a non real world example is my own case, a great many people in my neck of the woods in the US, and it seems to me, most people in the US. Do you think the 2 million living native Americans would have a just property claim to the entire US mainland?

Regarding your claim that what I described was a tautology, tell that to the anarcho-communists you earlier commented about who believe "property is theft".


Title: Re: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on March 29, 2012, 10:11:31 AM
Whoah, a lot of miscommunication here.


You seem to be putting a NOT in front of what I wrote, and I'm not sure why.
...

I'm saying you have nothing else to go off. What criterion do we use to objectively decide who is the aggressor? If we had objective criteria, even the difficult to determine cases would have clear, definitive answers. Since we don't have criteria, even the cases that seem simple only have general agreement as the criterion to work with. What else do we have?


“Everyone agrees” is nothing to “go off of”. It's not known if or what “everyone agrees” about.  You didn’t answer my question: is it objective that the earth is essentially round, and not flat, if not "everyone agrees" that's the case? Does it matter if “everyone agrees” that George Washington was the first President of the US, or if "everyone agrees" the earth orbits the sun?

The criterion is the prior-later distinction mentioned in my earlier post, with the quote by Stephan Kinsella. Evidence or proof is looked at, and a judgement is made about whether or not the criterion is met. Legal bodies usually help in that regard, some better than others. And by “difficult to determine cases”, I had in mind situations where the facts were hard or impossible to determine due to destruction of evidence, or something else; not an inapplicability of the prior-later distinction.  
I'm not arguing that agreement is something good to go off. I'm saying it's all you have in the area of figuring out who is the "aggressor." And you yourself are the one who keeps saying that is nothing to go off. I don't disagree at all. There really isn't any way of deciding.

As for the Earth being round, we can measure, and we have strict criterion of what it means. The Earth does indeed possess round properties, but is not a sphere. By difficult to determine cases, I was referring to breakdowns in NAP, where you don't know who is the aggressor. It's because the NAP is not some magic doctrine that prescribes absolute morality. It has flaws.

Quote
Furthermore, you may have read something into what I wrote, I didn’t intend to convey. What you’re calling a non real world example is my own case, a great many people in my neck of the woods in the US, and it seems to me, most people in the US. Do you think the 2 million living native Americans would have a just property claim to the entire US mainland?
I actually have no idea what you are writing about here. The non-real world example is true theoretically, because you described it using terms like, "one person didn't use force to do this, one person did use force to do that, and then asking who used force." As I've been trying to say this entire time, you don't have objective criterion for determining who used force, so it doesn't apply to reality. So your ability to make claims about who did what might work in the abstract, but cannot be objectively applied in the real world. I'm not sure what you living in America has to do with anything....

Quote
Regarding your claim that what I described was a tautology, tell that to the anarcho-communists you earlier commented about who believe "property is theft".

As defined, it's still tautological. You assigned/assumed who used force, and then made a claim about who used force. It's true regardless of someone's beliefs.

Regardless, I feel we've had so many miscommunications that we're spiraling out of control here. I think there is some valuable discussion to be had , but we might need to start over and explain to each other what we're talking about. I'm equally responsible for this mess. Sorry.