Daily Anarchist Forum
August 16, 2022, 01:14:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 10:06:32 PM
Quote
By taking away/sharing my means of production

The point is precisely there. Is it really yours. If isn't, there is no attack on your freedom.

It's like geo-anarchist who believed in capitalism, but argue that since the earth has not been create by humain, if we want to take a land, we have to pay taxe to the community since we stop them of using something that belongs to everybody.

17  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 09:16:51 PM
Where I sidestep your direct question?

To answer your last statement, I donít know exactly what is the position of anarcho-communism on taking the resource of another territory.

But if suppose you are in a collective territory (by collective one Iím not saying you accepted the system), of course, you will have to share the resource (but, youíll have the right to keep your gun, tools and so on).  I see not attack to your freedom (in the sense of anarcho-communism) here.

Let me add something. If I thief take your tv, and that he doesnít want to give it you back or pay you for it. What will you do ?
18  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 07:47:34 PM
All depend of the context. It can be aggression but I could be other thing. But three things:
1-   Itís not because I believe that it is aggression or not that it is.
2-   Itís not because it is aggression that it is immoral
3-   Anarcom do not believe they have the right of threatening the life of someone to make them do what you want for the rest of their lives. They also fight for freedom. They won't use aggression per see since they are retaking what they own. 
19  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 06:42:51 PM
Well, I am not totally sure of understanding what your question is. But surely, I will not call it moral or immoral, good or bad.

But donít forget that, in a left libertarian view, you will be the thief and the one who slave other if you take your propriety right since you do not enable others to use it, while it belongs to them too. 
20  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 06:13:26 PM
 First of all, I donít say that I agree with that definition and I am not a statist, but the arguments they offer are as valuable of yours at the very moment.

Secondly, itís a completely circular argument:

Why anarcho-capitalism is more moral than others ?

Because it respect private right.

And why we should respect private right (or value it)?

Because itís moral (or because itís immortal not doing it).

Nothing easier than showing A by B and B by A.

In consequence, your first statement is incorrect because you assume that not respecting private right is immoral and slavery. 
21  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 05:36:59 PM
NO!!!

YOu only told what you believed was moral or not but with no argument why it's universellay more moral. You only explained your point with individualist paradigm without showing why it is more morally acceptable.
22  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 04:37:24 PM
so you have logical reason that are not based on conviction, beliefs and so on the show that your moral is better than another moral ?
23  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 03:59:13 PM
WHy not ?
24  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 03:46:52 PM
Just want to had that even in anacap there is a separation, with Rothbard arguing in a moral way, while the Friedman are arguing in an utilitarian view. Personally, I do not believe in moral, so I prefer the utilitarian view of D.Friedman.

In consequence, I don’t see any moral justification of anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism of their definition of freedom.

In fact, both sides also have writers who try to explain their definition of freedom in a moral view. In my view, they are all equally right and wrong at the same time, because they are all based on a conviction that is nothing more than … a conviction. 
25  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 20, 2011, 11:05:40 PM
I canít disagree more with you.

I find that, again, you are look at it in an individualistic view. In your statement, you give a priority to private rights against collective ones. In fact, you are saying, people can let down their private right to live in commune. This suggest that if a person can own a land and that it will be inadequate for the community to retake this land for the collectivity since it belongs to a private individual.

Anyway, this will be my last post on that topic since I donít see the utility of arguing in a paradigm vs paradigm view. My point was only to show how I find the conception of freedom interesting and contradictory at the same time.

It makes me thing of a thing that David Friedman said. He told that he doesnít want to argue in moral terms since moral is a less developed Ďscienceí compared to economy.
26  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 20, 2011, 01:40:04 PM
But again, I donít want to say that I endorse anarcho-communism.

Itís just something I found interesting about freedom and the fact that we are debating about it is somehow a good example of it.

In some way, we can see it as a free market definition about freedom and liberty!
27  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 20, 2011, 10:26:33 AM
I totally agree with you on that.

But, yes, in a certain sense, itís all about perception. We all have our own definition and perception about what is and what isnít freedom and liberty. Since itís not inherent to human society, we have to create a context where one definition among other has to emerge and indirectly impose itself on others.

Furthermore, I see no more rational argument on both sides to say that one is right and the other is wrong.
28  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 19, 2011, 04:57:47 PM
I'm not sure where you are, but the USA has an odd legal system currently.  Most of the world has a loser pays system, unlike the USA.  With a loser pays system, the wealth means little.  Often lawyers will take cases and only ask for payment if they win.  Combined with loser pays system, there is no reason why the little guy wouldn't be able to mount a massive legal campaign of their own.  

There would also be the massive benefit vs the current systems in place due to restitution going to the victim, instead of the state. The victim will also not be required to pay in taxes to keep the criminal fed, sheltered and guarded.

I never said that the system now is better or worst. My point was not about the penal system.
All I tried to say is that the fact that some people could be wealthier can be seen as a form of hierarchy. I said nothing more, nothing less.
29  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 19, 2011, 02:56:10 PM
Quote
How will rich people have "Gain of cause" and what does that even mean?

What I want to mean is that, one can see (in some point of view) that those who have more money will have more power since they can decide more thing by using their money for arguing. The example of death penalty was to show that if the people who are pro-death penalty (or it can be the converse) have more money, even if they are outnumbered, will have the bargaining power. This can be seen, by anarcho-communist, hierarchical.
30  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 19, 2011, 02:49:50 PM
Letís take an example.

Suppose there is a field that an individual (call him Bob) own. Suppose that some guys (call them Robin Hoodís band) are in the field and are taking all the production of it (for example, corn).  You go outside and start to use force against them. How do you interpret this situation?

If you are an anarcho-communism, Bob is stealing the field of everyone, while the Robin Hoodís band is just taking back what Bob stole.

If you are an anarcho-capitalism, the Robin Hoodís band is stealing the corn, while Bob is trying to keep what the Robin Hoodís band just stole.

In both cases, you are imposing your will upon others (individual on collectivism, and vice versa).

If we get out of this example, you can always say that in an anarcho-capitalism society, two persons can freely accept a trade (for example, I sell you the corn of my field in a capitalism view). However, that would be the equivalent (in an anarcho-communism view) of saying; I will rub the field, and then trade it freely in a capitalism view Ö

Donít forget that, in anarcho-communism view, no freedom is possible without equity and that isnít untrue to say that anarcho-communism isnít somehow individualist.

Iíll quote a passage of Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt: "The anarchists did not ... identify freedom with the right of everybody to do exactly what one pleased but with a social order in which collective effort and responsibilities- that is to say, obligations- would provide the material basis and social nexus in which individual freedom could exist." They argued that "genuine freedom and individuality could only exist in a free society" and that in contrast to "misanthropic bourgeois individualism" anarchism was based in "a deep love of freedom, understood as a social product, a deep respect for human rights, a profound celebration of humankind and its potential and a commitment to a form of society where a 'true individuality' was irrevocably linked to 'the highest communist socieability'"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!