Daily Anarchist Forum
August 16, 2022, 01:26:27 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
31  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 19, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
Quote
Wealth is not a hierarchy.

Well, look the video who talks about the laws in a free society. When they talk about the death penalty, the author said that the final decision will depend on the consumer preference (bargaining power). But in fact, a security agency can have a lot less member but those are richer and will have gain of cause, not because they outnumbered the other agency, but because they are wealthier. In this case, it can be see that itís the wealthier that are hierarchically upper than the less wealthy (That's only an example).

Quote
Tell me of another type of freedom that doesn't impose others will upon me, or figure out how to justify slavery and theft to me.  

I know no theory that could, even anarcho-capitalism. Thatís all my point!
32  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Should I open up The Daily Anarchist to anarchists of all stripes? on: December 19, 2011, 12:22:06 PM
I know a guy whos an anarcho commie and what I have been doing is talking to him about the injustice of the state and injecting some voluntarist philosophy into it. Like most, he doesn't have a plausible idea about how it would work, just bits and pieces of it. I think that if I sit down and talk to him for an hour about our type of anarchism he will be converted. As long as I don't say the evil "c" word.

Ya the famous Ďcí word. I suppose that you make reference to the term communism, when you remind him historical damage of it! Lol

Quote
I have also never heard an explanation from AnComms about how their world would work.

Itís a lot more abstract, indeed.

33  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 19, 2011, 12:05:56 PM
I disagree with you for three reasons.

First of all, even the most individualist society has to be, in some way, collectivist. In fact, for your individual freedom to be respected (private right), it has to be acknowledged by the population around you. We are all interdependent in some way.

Secondly, your question is somehow biased. You ask how you can be considered free. But the question that you should ask is how I can be free in the sense proclaimed by anarcho-capitalism, which is one type of freedom among others.

Thirdly, donít forget that, for anarcho-communist, they will still have an archy in an Anarcap society, because they will still have a hierarchy since some will be wealthier than others. By the same token, theyíll have more control and become, indirectly, a state.
34  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Should I open up The Daily Anarchist to anarchists of all stripes? on: December 18, 2011, 08:59:21 PM
I'm very conflicted about other anarchists. They all seem to pretty much belief in collectivism being supreme over the individual and they often believe in force (not always self-defensive). Their stance on property is confusing and conflicts with out own. Most of the time debates are fruitless and it usually ends in name-calling.

I agree, and I have always wondered how they consider themselves anarchists due to that.

All depend of your definition. In a collective view, you donít have propriety right since everything belongs to the collectivity. In consequence, if somebody owns a field only for him, it is thief. It becomes, in this view, legitimate to use force for retaken the field, in the same way itíll be consider morally acceptable for somebody, in Anarcap, to use force to take the TV that your neighbour just rub to you.

Itís funny. When you read or listen anarcho-capitalism they say that anarchy and communism are two contradictory terms, while anarcho-communisms say the same thing about anarchy and capitalism.
35  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 16, 2011, 12:55:44 PM
Ya itís somehow the type of alternative (not necessary this one) that I want to know.

In fact, all the debate in my head started when I watched two anarchists arguing; one was an Anarcho-communism the other Anarcho-capitalism (I tried to use other example, but I think I would have been simpler if I stand with Ancom vs Ancap).

Both arguing that the other wasnít anarchist at all. My conclusion, at the end, was they were, in a sense, both right. 

All depends of your definition of freedom and liberty. In consequence, both sides can be view as authoritarian (the word is maybe to hard) since for one to be true, the definition of freedom and liberty has to be accepted. A system has to be created for persons know what is and what freedom isnít.  A certain example of that is what social-liberal told us. Since, in there view, liberty isnít inherent to human society, we have to create it. The way to do that is to restrain liberty for creating liberty.

If so, Iím searching an alternative of saying I am for freedom and liberty because I find it contradictory.
36  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 15, 2011, 01:46:48 AM
Maybe itís too hard for me to explain it in English.
 
First of all, I donít tell that I agree or not with you.

The only thing I say is that the liberty that anarcho-cap proposes is one type of liberty that has limits (non-aggression, for example Ė but we can also thing of the right for a private school to decide what the students have to wear ; for me (we can say that) itís against the liberty of the student to decide for him what to wear. You can say that itís in a private place, but I can say that for me, the liberty of wearing what we want predominate on the one of private possession (school in this example)). But if you make limit to liberty, then I donít see any reason why another person cannot put his own additional limits on liberty.
37  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 14, 2011, 11:59:36 PM
My point is that anarcho-cap is somehow authoritarian and that it is untrue to say that it fights for freedom and liberty (1). Giving this logic, it becomes hard to trace a line and say this is a violation of right that is acceptable while this one isnít (2).

So, I somehow doubt that the concept of freedom and liberty is even a possible, adequate and Ďreelí one.
38  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 14, 2011, 11:15:36 PM
The primary difference is that you can establish collectivism within a an an-cap society, but you can't establish an-cap within a collectivism.

Again, the premise of this statement is that we have individual right so we can share it to create a collectivism society if we want.

However, in a collectivism view an individual cannot old a tree since the tree is the resource of everyone. So if somebody want take the tree, he will steal it to the community. In this paradigm, taking the tree will be against the freedom and the right of the collectivity. If we say that this view is incorrect, itís somehow because we Ďdecideí (to impose) that the individual right has to predominate over the collective right.

Furthermore, collectivists do not necessary talk about freedom (but more about equity). So to be coherent, they donít have to let people be Ďfreeí.   
39  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 14, 2011, 10:48:50 PM
Quote
Does the pawn for the government feel as strongly about his position? Is he willing to put his life on the line for it? This is why I have hope in our side. We have something worth fighting for. They do not.

Well, Iím not convince about what that Ö maybe some of them (maybe the majority), but not necessary all. But this doesnít mean that we are or arenít in contradiction.

My point is only that, contrary to others anarcho-cap, I donít see (without any doubt) why libertarians are more for freedom than a statist. We impose our way of thinking about freedom and we put limits on it (principle of non-aggression, individual right (vs collectivism) for example). But if we do that (starting to impose freedom) why a state that takes my money is consider to be stealing (in the sense that it could be argue, like social-liberalism told, that we have to redistribute the wealth (positive right) to enable everyone to use their liberty :: That is one example).
40  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 14, 2011, 09:37:51 PM
your property

Who tells that is your property. Why it's not the property of everyone (a collective view). What if someone doesnít recognize that we can have property right?

 
I call it freedom to choose what you do with your property as long as it does not infringe upon another's freedom to choose what they do with theirs.

What if someone doesn't recognize that definition of freedom?
41  General Category / General Discussion / contradiction in freedom on: December 14, 2011, 09:09:08 PM
My post is about what can be call the contradiction of freedom.

In an anarcho-capitalism society, they should be no laws that reduce the liberty of enterprise. So, for example, if a restaurant doesnít want to sell foods to a person with green eye while accepting those with others eye colors, he has the right to do it. In consequence, those with green eye will not be free since they cannot buy food in this restaurant.

Of course, in a voluntary view, itís not true to say that the green eye wonít be free since they have no right on the food sell in this restaurant. Others can argue that it is against his right.

My point here is that as a voluntary society, we will have to impose, somehow, our definition and our view of freedom. The non-aggression principle is another example of that. For a friend to me, the fact that we wonít let him take control (use coercion) of others is against his freedom.

But if we start to impose freedom (or our definition), what can we say to those who want to take our freedom (in our view theyíll take our freedom. In their view, they wonít).
42  General Category / General Discussion / Re: free will vs determinism on: December 11, 2011, 06:27:44 PM
I really don't care. I'm going to believe I have free will because it makes me feel better. If determinism is truth then theres not much I can do about it either, can I?

Indeed!

In fact, if determinism is true, the fact that you don't believe it is the consequence of determinism (in other words, the fact that you believe or not in determinism isn't in your control).
43  General Category / General Discussion / Re: free will vs determinism on: December 11, 2011, 01:31:51 PM
I've never found free will to be incompatible with atheism.  If anything, I think the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent god contradicts the idea of free will.

How do you explain free will without god (or with a materisalist view) ? The only theory I know that is materialist and believe in free will is the theory of emergence (well this is the translation of thťorie de l'ťmergence in French. I don't know if it's the correct translation ...).

This theory propose that our cerebral state give rise to a mental state that as some qualities of having a causal power on the physics (the cerebral state). Personnaly I believe that :

Cerebral state = Mental state.

Like JustSaynoToStatism wrote it, the study of brain damage (and others as well) tend to contradict the emergence theory (they are also some theoritical problems with this theory).
44  General Category / General Discussion / Re: free will vs determinism on: December 10, 2011, 08:35:59 PM
Quote
I'm "free" to the extent that my brain can process information. My will is not free, because the machinery doing the processing is beyond my control, and the world around me (the inputs of my sensory experience) is largely beyond my control as well.

Completely agree with you. FOr me, free will cannot be true ...

Just want to add that there are some theory to explain why we have the IMPRESSION of having a free will.

The model told that our brain take the decision (step 1), we are conscious of this decision (part 2) and we do the decision (step 3). Some study somehow support this view.
45  General Category / General Discussion / free will vs determinism on: December 10, 2011, 07:11:31 PM
Hi there,

I have a question that has nothing to do with anarchist. I want to know if you believe in freedom. I donít talk here about freedom in the sense of having the right to do this or this. I talk of freedom in his ontological definition (free will vs determinism). Do you believe that human are free(that they have a special quality that enable them to decide what they do), or are we govern by the laws of determinism?
 
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!