Daily Anarchist Forum
September 22, 2019, 07:46:16 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  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Why I am not (quite) an anarchist  (Read 10620 times)
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« on: January 22, 2012, 09:27:50 AM »

At the risk of heresy, I'm coming out here as a minarchist. Anarcho-capitalists disagree among themselves, and where all anarcho-capitalists seem to agree, I usually agree with them, but I don't (quite) accept the "anarchist" label for reasons I'll discuss here. I'm not trying to pick a fight with an-caps as much as I'm trying to clarify precisely what we advocate.

My rejection of the "anarchist" label is a matter of semantics, of course. Here's the rub. I want certain rules enforced, namely rules involving what I deem "proper" or property rights. I want you forced to obey these rules even if you don't accept them. An association of persons, including me, will enforce the rules, but we do not require your membership in the association.

This association is a state by definition, because it imposes force upon you even though you do not freely subject yourself to it. An anarchist by definition does not support a state. Since I support a state, however minimal, I cannot be an anarchist.

Again, I will join forces with other people to establish systematically what we deem proper and then to compel others, who have not joined us, to respect it. This willingness makes me something other than an anarchist.

Furthermore, anarcho-capitalists generally are not anarchists in this sense, despite the label. In fact, I've never met a genuine anarchist of any description.

Anarchy is not impossible. The state of nature is essentially an anarchy for example. In the state of nature, an individual defends his claims entirely by his own force, and the successful defense of a claim is itself the only "rightness". No authority imposing systematic rules, constructed collectively somehow by an association of individuals, exists.

The laws of nature exist, of course, but gravity is not a rule formulated somehow by the individuals enforcing it. The genome of a species is not such a system either. Even a rule as fundamental as Lockean propriety is such a rule.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2012, 09:46:07 AM »

I wouldn't call a defense agency of my property a state. To me, the state is an organization that initiates violence against non-criminals. If a person or entity trespasses against another's property the entity that comes to the defense of that property is not a state, although the state currently attempts to do that now.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2012, 10:55:53 AM »

Anarchy doesn't mean you can't have help defending yourself.  Wild animals, which I think we can all agree do not have governments, do not act alone at all times.  

I don't see where you described anything that wouldn't happen under ancap.  The difference is primarily the manner in which it is funded.  The difference in funding is intended to keep some group from turning from a voluntary exchange to one of violence.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 11:04:26 AM by Syock » Logged

Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2012, 11:05:48 AM »

I wouldn't call a defense agency of my property a state. To me, the state is an organization that initiates violence against non-criminals. If a person or entity trespasses against another's property the entity that comes to the defense of that property is not a state, although the state currently attempts to do that now.
The question is: what is your property or what is property generally? I came to anarchism years ago through Proudhon, and the question still resonates with me.

My property is not anything I claim. It's what I and my friends aiding my defense of the claim say it is, and if you (being outside of this circle of friends) disagree, we impose our will upon you anyway. Calling our circle a "defense agency" doesn't change this fact. Calling you a "criminal" doesn't change the fact either.

Every state declares its systematic rules universal and declares violators criminal.
Logged
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2012, 11:08:58 AM »

Humans impose authority on each other by there mere fact of existing. Two humans always have power of one another.

The trick is balancing that power in such a way that coercion becomes very obviously against every bodies self-interest. Note that I personally believe that ALL coercion is necessarily ALWAYS against your self-interest.

As long as people believe that coercion is good for their self-interest we will have statism.
Logged
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2012, 11:13:47 AM »

Anarchy doesn't mean you can't have help defending yourself.  Wild animals, which I think we can all agree do not have governments, do not act alone at all times.
For me, the issue is not acting alone or in a group. The issue is imposing a rule that the imposing group itself formulates. A pack of wolves does not formulate the rules that it imposes, because the rules are genetic.

Quote
I don't see where you described anything that wouldn't happen under ancap.
You're right. I don't differ much with an-caps in practice. I mostly differ with their semantics. I am open in theory to systems of propriety presuming a state like title expiration and a progressive consumption tax, but systematic propriety generally requires a state.

Quote
The difference is primarily the manner in which it is funded.  The difference in funding is intended to keep some group from turning from a voluntary exchange to one of violence.
I support a market in the defense of propriety, so I agree with an-caps in this regard.
Logged
ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2012, 11:35:16 AM »

I want you forced to obey these rules even if you don't accept them. An association of persons, including me, will enforce the rules, but we do not require your membership in the association.

Please explain this a bit better.  Would you personally be willing to kill me (the ultimate threat behind every enforced rule) if I 1) didn't do what the association required or 2) did do what the associated forbade?  Would you kill me if I didn't contribute resources to rule enforcement?  Who defines the rules?  Who interprets the rules?  Who enforces the rules?   If it is majority rule, then how are the minority protected?

PS.  If you (or your association) attempt to enforce a rule on me (not me personally, but a generic person) that I don't accept then be prepared to die. (not a threat, just a statement of reality).
Logged
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2012, 11:36:30 AM »

Humans impose authority on each other by there mere fact of existing. Two humans always have power of one another.
Humans do not impose rules of their own formulation (their free will) upon each other merely by existing. This sort of imposition is practically universal among humanity, contrasted with other animals, but so are states.

Quote
The trick is balancing that power in such a way that coercion becomes very obviously against every bodies self-interest.
I agree, but I don't see how you ever reach genuine anarchy without returning to the state of nature, in which individuals defend their own claims exclusively by their own force, or essentially abandoning free will. We can agree to join forces, but as long as my will can differ from yours, states emerge from the clash of competing claims.

Quote
Note that I personally believe that ALL coercion is necessarily ALWAYS against your self-interest.
Yes, coercion serves the interests of the coercive authority, as when you and I agree to defend our exclusive use of two parcels of land. Property in the land is also useful more generally as it creates a market in the parcels enabling market prices and market organization to emerge; however, my particular property in a particular parcel benefits me primarily, and yours benefits you primarily, and the scarcity of desirable land leads to a state. Locke essentially reaches this conclusion.

Quote
As long as people believe that coercion is good for their self-interest we will have statism.
The search for a person believing that no coercion is good is like the search for an honest man. The honest man is an ideal that does not and cannot exist in reality, but we can go on searching regardless.
Logged
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2012, 11:48:11 AM »

Please explain this a bit better.  Would you personally be willing to kill me (the ultimate threat behind every enforced rule) if I 1) didn't do what the association required or 2) did do what the associated forbade?
I would harm you as little as possible. Expelling you from the territory claimed by the association might be sufficient.

Quote
Would you kill me if I didn't contribute resources to rule enforcement?
No. I would withhold rule enforcement from you, unless you are unable to contribute resources. I favor rules entitling the disabled to some support.

Quote
Who defines the rules?  Who interprets the rules?  Who enforces the rules?
My friends and I.

Quote
If it is majority rule, then how are the minority protected?
Rule is by consensus ideally. If you don't like the rules, you leave our territory. A free association might adopt representative authorities if members don't care enough about particular rules to be bothered with the details.

Quote
PS.  If you (or your association) attempt to enforce a rule on me (not me personally, but a generic person) that I don't accept then be prepared to die. (not a threat, just a statement of reality).
Needless to say, I prefer killing you to dying myself.
Logged
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2012, 11:55:45 AM »

Quote
The search for a person believing that no coercion is good is like the search for an honest man. The honest man is an ideal that does not and cannot exist in reality, but we can go on searching regardless.

I believe exactly that.

I do not know if your property and labour is some day going to benefit me. It might never benefit me directly. But the fact that you are trading means that there will be chain reactions set in motion that will eventually benefit me in some way. Because I can not know what I would lose if I violently stole your property from you and because I can not know the retaliation against me if I did, it is rational for me to not steal your property.

Here's something I wrote earlier:

Quote
While charity and solidarity might seem like a "loss of wealth" at first for the "rich", I think in the end it leads to greater wealth for everyone. The tool for the selfish man is cooperation and solidarity. "Greed" is only dangerous in combination with "ignorance". Thats why it's futile to fight greed, which is human nature. Instead fight ignorance with education.

To remind me of this. I always consider where the world would be if Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton or Leonardo da Vinci was forced to work as a serf on a farm or in a factory for his entire life. Then I think of all the people slaving away in China and wonder if one of them could have been the next Thomas Edison. But he will never get the chance to develop himself and achieve great things. This always makes me sad and angry that I will never benefit from the things he could have invented. Even if you don't give a damn about the kids themselves, you should be concerned for your self-interest. And I do care about the kids.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2012, 01:08:27 PM »

Martin Brock: I get what you're saying about violence, and I agree. If you want to think of it that way, then I say anarchism is synonymous with personal monarchy. Each person is ruler over himself, and he can acquire property (just not other persons). So it's the smallest type of government possible, all the way down to personal secession. People can voluntarily cooperate in other ways, for defense if they want, but the option to secede is implied....This attitude is clearly anti-state, and it's called anarchism, whether you want to call these voluntary arrangements governments or not isn't worth arguing about. We had someone else come on the forum saying the exact same thing, and he got frustrated and left. The truth is that what I'm describing is what people call anarchism, regardless of whether you think that's "right" or not. That's what the word means, so we use it that way (although the direction of causality works the other way too...and that's my point). You are clearly sympathetic to that cause, which is great, so there's no need to argue over whether the definition is acceptable or not.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2012, 09:03:28 PM »

... whether you want to call these voluntary arrangements governments or not isn't worth arguing about.
The people we label "criminal" do not volunteer to accept the arrangements, but I don't oppose a very limited criminal law. As reluctant imposers of force, we should never deny the force we impose. That's my only point.

I'm not going anywhere. I have more in common with your lot than with most anyone else.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2012, 09:55:49 PM »

... whether you want to call these voluntary arrangements governments or not isn't worth arguing about.
The people we label "criminal" do not volunteer to accept the arrangements, but I don't oppose a very limited criminal law. As reluctant imposers of force, we should never deny the force we impose. That's my only point.

I'm not going anywhere. I have more in common with your lot than with most anyone else.
And I agree with your point. Of course, it's questionable whether you can call it "imposing" if it's done in defense of person and property. But yes, I do understand that if people have differing views about the nature of property, then market anarchists are "aggressing" against them, so to speak.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2012, 05:54:44 PM »

... if people have differing views about the nature of property, then market anarchists are "aggressing" against them, so to speak.
Market anarchists (or minarchists) with differing standards of propriety would aggress against each other, so we should discuss these standards openly, but we often avoid this discussion.

I sympathize with mutualists but reject the classical labor theory of value. As a marginalist, I recognize that all market value is not the marginal value of labor. Many non-human resources contribute to the price of a bushel of corn, like a fertile parcel of land, the labor of a mule pulling a plow or the fossil fuel propelling a tractor. The "dead labor" of a farmer's father can also contribute.

Some mutualists essentially suggest that the marginal product of all of these non-human (or dead human) resources should be divided somehow among living laborers, so that labor earns its "full product". I reject this division as well as the "full product" rhetoric, because the division requires some sort of authority to govern it, and this authority impedes the profitable organization of resources in capital markets. I want dynamic market organization, so I don't want laborers consuming every product.

I don't therefore conclude that capitalists should consume the marginal product of every resource they govern. Capitalists investing the product of these resources pursuing profit is useful, but capitalists consuming the product is a separate issue. Many resources other than labor are productive, but I suppose that a man has a right to a market exchange of labor for his labor, i.e. if you consume the product of my labor, I expect you to produce commensurately by your own labor, not by a slave's labor or your father's labor or even a mule's labor or by the productivity of a fertile parcel of land or a fossil fuel.

If you govern productive resources other than your labor in addition to your labor, your income reflects the productivity of both. Distinguishing the two precisely seems impossible, but beyond some level, I suppose most of a man's income reflects more the value of resources he governs by writ of forcible propriety than any meaningful value of his own labor. Adam Smith and other classical liberals therefore propose progressive income taxation. We can then distinguish a man's right to consume income more below this level from his right to consume income more above it.

No other authority must govern expenditure of the latter, except to limit the man's entitlement personally to consume it, as opposed to investing it, and this authority need not be centralized. Juries hearing a tax evasion case could decide, i.e. the law progressively taxes consumption by taxing income not accountably invested, and juries hear cases of alleged evasion. No one actually pays much of this tax. It serves only to discourage consumption above a level reflecting the product of an individual's labor.

Every individual has an individual investment account (like an IRA or 401k) with unlimited, tax deferred contributions, and income not invested is taxed progressively, even at rates approaching 100%. "Investment" might include charitable expenditures, but as a practical matter, common law distinguishes investment from consumption, i.e. common juries govern the income not subject to the tax.

So we have something like an economic planning/welfare state, and it has many resources, but no central authority governs it. Wealthy capitalists, becoming wealthy by organizing resources profitably, are the economic planners and welfare organizers, but common juries limit their discretion to consume the product of resources they govern, other than their own labor. This system is basically what anarcho-capitalists advocate except for the role of juries limiting the authority of capitalists to consume all of the product of resources they govern.

I'm curious to know how an anarcho-capitalist opposes this imposition. I concede an imposition, but I deny that the imposition is isolated. The imposition balances other impositions to check the authority, associated with forcible propriety, that other impositions establish.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2012, 12:37:32 AM »

I'm curious to know how an anarcho-capitalist opposes this imposition.

Which imposition?  I saw a hell of a lot of them in what you described.  I don't believe one can be addressed alone.  That is one of the problems with impositions.  When people see one, more start to make sense to balance the first one. 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 12:39:11 AM by Syock » Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!