Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 01:24:30 PM *
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
1  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 11, 2011, 09:47:49 PM
Have you forgotten that I read your entire book?

Whoops, no for some reason I thought I was replying to JustSayNoToStatism, sorry. I definitely didn't forget Smiley

2  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 11, 2011, 09:40:17 PM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

Well it's good we have some common ground in there. I agree in essential terms with this, other than your use of the word "anarchy" and "free market" to describe the underlying facts.

You would probably like my book better than the essay, since it is primarily focussed on the underlying values that people should embrace (which I term as "individual rights" -- I know you disagree with "rights", but you're disagreeing with an obsolete conception so in some sense I don't disagree with your disagreement). This Against Anarchism essay is just a foray into a much narrower issue.
3  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 11, 2011, 10:23:05 AM
I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.
4  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 10, 2011, 11:10:37 PM
Quote
If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Your reforms would never satisfy my desire to be free

Better buy a spaceship, you're gonna need it.
5  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 10, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Quote
I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest
I can speak for all anarchists when I say that we would establish or join free societies immediately if we could do so without getting butchered by our masters.

No you wouldn't. You just think you would because of what is going on now. You're so blinded by all the rotten things that you aren't thinking straight.
6  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 10, 2011, 12:17:13 PM
Given my last post, which says that the Federal Government says around, but that its functions are scaled back to morally-defensible functions, if that existed as I say it would have both a historical and logical connection to our current Federal Government, and I think it is patently absurd to call this "anarchy."
7  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 10, 2011, 12:14:47 PM
Quote
First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.
Yes, rules will spontaneously arise, and people will enforce them. Governance without government. No objections. I simply prefer not to call it a system, since it can arise without coercion. It's just nature....As we can see, you are an anarchist. You might prefer some synonym that sounds less provocative, but you fit under the umbrella of people who support the idea of statelessness...the end of taxation.

I'm not sure we're communicating. When I say "Natural Law" jurisdiction, I am referring to the possibility of a government which enforces Natural Law. This includes the possibility of Americans consensually supporting the Federal Government in that role. If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Why? To name one reason, I don't want the Chinese instituting Communism here. I believe in a centralized military strong enough to keep out foreign aggressors. Now in the ideal world and in the long-run, there are none. Humanity learns how to behave itself. And this military would wither away to the National Guard. But for now that is not the case.

Since the Federal Government would be the most powerful of consensually supported governments, any others that might arise would be irrelevant, and given a firm commitment by the Federal Government to protect rights, undesired. I am not saying they shouldn't have a right to arise (which is similar to the competing government scenario of anarcho-capitalism outside of city-state zones). I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest (except in the same kind of way that State governments already manifest a jurisdiction that should be based on Natural Law -- more locally).
8  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 10, 2011, 12:33:08 AM
Again, quit worrying about classification. If you cannot name a normative principle that separates you from anarchists, then this thread is over. Objectivism vs Subjectivism would be a new topic, and is not a challenge to anarchism.

First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.

Second of all, your totalitarian rule that I not discuss the reasons in the second half of my essay are totally subjective and arbitrary. You of all people should allow a discussion of whatever wherever. You're totally undisciplined on terminology on stuff that matters, but when it comes to this forum you seem to be a petty and misguided dictator.
9  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Either state a principle that we disagree on, or we can just call it quits here, and continue other types of discussion elsewhere in the forum.

You seem to have missed the last half of my essay, which is on how anarchism ought to be defined and why.

Everything I've been saying is totally on point for this thread, and I won't be creating a different one.
10  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
Words aren't science. They are subjective.

Speak for yourself. We all use words differently. Some more intelligently and scientifically than others. I don't think those using more primitive methods should be casting stones at those who use more sophisticated ones.

I mean, your whole claim here just turns everything you say into primitive mumbo jumbo. No one can really know what you really mean, because it's all personal to you anyway. That's fine, because at least it's a terminal point in the debate. You admit that you make no sense, nor do you want to.
11  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
The word is anarchy. And yes, we're living in anarchy right now. We always have been and always will be. And don't tell me government exists, because it doesn't. It's a fiction that a lot of people believe in, nothing more.

That all depends on what means by the word "government." Now you guys are all "live and let live" kind of guys, seemingly, except for letting me have my own definition and understanding of the term.

Government is no myth. It is a formalized system of rules applied in a given area. And yes, it really has rules, they are written, and they are applied by real people, who participate in this very real activity. So all these real things are going on, and what we refer to them as is "government." Except anarchists. Anarchists only want to refer to evil things. They don't want to refer to all the things. And also at times it seems they want to say these things cannot be referred to as government, and they reserve that word for a myth.

I think you guys are playing shell games with words. And it's a dangerous game because it wrecks the liberty movement, making us divided and weaker.
12  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 05:45:10 PM
I'm pretty sure I answered your question correctly. I never said it was chaos to go walking into a forest and homestead. You asked me what the anarchist's word was for what most people call anarchy and I told you it was chaos. When there is total pandemonium and rioting in the streets there is chaos, but most people call it anarchy.

You're talking about what the uneducated say anarchy means, but I was asking the reverse question: what is the word for that particular situation where there is no system of any kind. No government, no "defense agencies", just people. Note the very first sense of the word anarchy in this dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy


Shayne

13  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
Quote
Well if you're going to get picky I'll quote from my book: "To formally define these terms: a right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."
You are certainly allowed to do this. It's just my belief that "rights" theory is only useful in talking to very specific people, and most people don't want to hear about it. That's just my experience in trying to convert people to the libertarian camp. I think your definition could be useful at certain times.

We need to get rid of the rampant subjectivism in the liberty movement or we can't really argue for anything.

This is the same point we're disagreeing about with the terminology regarding anarchism. You guys are fine with whatever terminology, and I'm saying that it's wrong to be fine with that. True is true, better is better, and if people are going to understand something, there are efficient reliable means, and inefficient unreliable means. It's wrong to accept people as they come (so to speak), what you're trying to do is teach them to learn right from wrong, and that means changing how they think, which is precisely NOT to accept them as they are.

You are accepting of me as I am, but I am not accepting of you as you are, but you probably don't accept that, do you? If you do accept that, then you're just saying that it's inevitable that people will disagree about important things, and if that is the case, then essentially you are throwing your hands up in the air and saying that war is inevitable, because that's all war is about in the first place. And if you don't accept my not accepting you as you are, then you're being a hypocrite.

Quote
Quote
The definition I gave above is perfectly true though. There is such a thing as an objective act of first interference. This is a case I expand on in my book. The proper definition of "right" is based on a proper understanding of initiating interference.
I don't know if the definition is true, so much as it is true that you gave the definition. Sometimes there may be "objective" first acts of interference, but there are plenty of times where you can't objectively determine these things.

For example? When in principle can you not know? I'm not talking about being able to know all of the facts of a case, that's irrelevant to the principle at hand. I mean sure, someone can do something criminal and never get caught, or hide evidence, but that doesn't mean that we can't objectively say that if we knew what he did, that what he did was wrong.

Quote
Quote
This is all based on an outdated view of rights. Molyneux threw the baby out with the bathwater when instead he should have revisited the foundations.
I'm guessing outdated just means it's a view of rights you disagree with? Despite having no bathwater, Molyneux seems to be able to communicate his ideas very effectively. Rights theory is valuable in so much as it helps in talking to people, and I happen to believe most people don't respond well to it. People often (not always) think of it as goofy, "outdated," or not in touch with reality.

Well this is just the subjectivism again. By "outdated" I mean that no rights theorist that I know of has answered the kind of objections many have raised, until now. Now that those objections are dealt with, they are no longer relevant, so your criticisms are outdated.
14  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 01:55:35 PM
Quote
Rights are, precisely, human action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others.
How can the precise definition of rights, include the term "rights"  ?

Well if you're going to get picky I'll quote from my book: "To formally define these terms: a right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."

The definition I gave above is perfectly true though. There is such a thing as an objective act of first interference. This is a case I expand on in my book. The proper definition of "right" is based on a proper understanding of initiating interference.

Quote
What we're trying to say, is that in the real world, no one "has" to respect your property or life. Since all of these things are "alienable" (contrary to popular belief) in the sense that you can be deprived of them, we don't like to think of them as absolute rights. We just believe that our preferences for guidelines concerning the interactions between human beings will produce outcomes that those same humans would appreciate. We'll be better off if people stop killing and stealing from one another. But there is no law in the universe (unfortunately) that says I am entitled to my life or property.

Stefan Molyneux always says, if someone can come up to me and kill me or steal from me, then my life and property can't be "rights." Rights, according to the common understanding, can't be taken away, but all of these things can.

This is all based on an outdated view of rights. Molyneux threw the baby out with the bathwater when instead he should have revisited the foundations. (See the full case For Individual Rights in my book of that name.)

Quote
PS: wissler, given how strong an influence Ayn Rand has had on you, I am very confident that you would find Stefan Molyneux's podcasts and videos to be very enjoyable.

I've seen his stuff, and yes I like him. I just disagree on some very fundamental things. I regard his views to be off the rails in exactly the opposite direction as I view Rand having gone off the rails. They each make opposite errors, but they are still errors. This is extremely common: one person errs in one direction, and the reaction to the error is often an overreaction. This is the case with anarchism, and with Molyneux's rejection of rights.
15  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Against Anarchism essay on: April 09, 2011, 11:09:07 AM
I rarely ever talk about rights. To me, rights do not exist. Libertarians needs to stop talking about rights. Rights have little to no bearing in human action.

Rights are, precisely, human action that does not interfere with the equal rights of others.
Pages: [1] 2
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!