Daily Anarchist Forum
October 06, 2022, 08:51:21 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  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Religion, Anarchism, and Collectivism ...  (Read 15332 times)
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« on: March 01, 2012, 06:49:38 AM »

It was an odd week for me. I saw the nice post on the front page here by the young fellow who is a Christian anarchist. In the same week I discovered another anarchist site (or so they say) and was told that I was "not welcome around here" since I mentioned Rothbard in some context or the other.

The two events got me to thinking about real anarchism. The heart of it is that the anarchist does not believe in gangs using force or coercion to enforce their desires on the rest of us. I don't care what the gang calls itself: mafia, church, or government.

I could be the most devout Roman Catholic in the world, but as long as I don't try to use aggression against others then I could be a fabulous anarchist. If I think that communes are the best way to go then I could try to set one up or join one that is already in existence (if they would have me). I cross the line when I join with others to force you to live as I do, or as I don't but think you should.

So, I am wondering why some so-called anarchists think that other anarchists are "not welcome here" if their vision of a perfect world does not match exactly with the crowd. Is it like the religious nut who can only stand you if you agree with every single tenet of his religion?

We are living in a world where country after country is a tyranny or becoming one. Seems to me that even the libertarian who believes that a small government is needed is still a valuable ally: and certainly anyone who agrees with the non-aggression principle is my ally. No?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 08:55:33 AM by Mark Stoval » Logged
derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2012, 09:13:05 AM »

I think many so called anarchists use anarchy as a front to cover up their real intentions. The Occupy movement is a prime example of this. They seem to have a twisted idea of fairness, rights and equality, that in their eyes the only way to accomplish this is through force. How can they claim to have the NAP at the center of what they believe and want to use force to get what they want? They cant, so they exclude anyone that points out this inconsistency.
Logged
dpalme
Solder Monkey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 798



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2012, 12:41:51 PM »

I think many so called anarchists use anarchy as a front to cover up their real intentions. The Occupy movement is a prime example of this. They seem to have a twisted idea of fairness, rights and equality, that in their eyes the only way to accomplish this is through force. How can they claim to have the NAP at the center of what they believe and want to use force to get what they want? They cant, so they exclude anyone that points out this inconsistency.

The occupy movement is a perfect example. They use the front of "everyone is equal" but shoot down ideas that oppose theirs. People who can't see other standpoints are just as bad/the same as the system their angry at.
Logged

http://cur.lv/fgf0 <--- Accepting bitcoins!
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2012, 03:31:07 PM »

I think many so called anarchists use anarchy as a front to cover up ... How can they claim to have the NAP at the center of what they believe and want to use force to get what they want? ...

Spot on. It reminds me of the old joke, "the beatings will continue until moral improves!"

We are to live by the non-aggression axiom and use only our powers of persuasion to get others to do as we would have them do. I recall that Rothbard was really radical on his ideas of what would be legal in his ideal libertarian world concerning abortion and child rearing; but pointed out that what was to be legal was not the same thing as what was moral. (well, not necessarily the same thing)

The "golden rule" that most religions claim says that I should not use force on anyone else since I sure don't want someone to use force on me. When people come to realize this ancient wisdom is the way to live; anarchy may get a fair trial.


Logged
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2012, 03:40:30 PM »

The occupy movement is a perfect example. They use the front of "everyone is equal" but shoot down ideas that oppose theirs. People who can't see other standpoints are just as bad/the same as the system their angry at.

Boy that is the truth. I can't even figure out exactly what the movement wants. I can't figure out what the country would look like after they have "won". But I can see that a movement that arrogantly purports to represent 99% of all Americans sure does not represent me on a host of issues!

I don't believe anarchists will "win" in the streets. I believe we will win in the mind. I believe our ideas are right and we will prevail someday by the power of persuasion.

Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2012, 05:19:07 PM »

@Mark Stoval:

I don't entirely agree. The truth is that if you abstract far enough, then market anarchists endorse violence as well. Property rights are "enforced through the barrel of a gun." If you don't accept property rights, then any attempt to use violence in defense of them is seen as aggression. Likewise, if you do accept property rights, then their efforts to steal from us are seen as aggression.

Therefore, the violence argument fails. The only way we can really argue with them is to discuss the merits of a free market system. State up front what your values are, and why market anarchism achieves them.

^I believe this is the most important recent change in my own intellectual development.
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
derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2012, 07:40:30 PM »

I don't entirely agree. The truth is that if you abstract far enough, then market anarchists endorse violence as well. Property rights are "enforced through the barrel of a gun." If you don't accept property rights, then any attempt to use violence in defense of them is seen as aggression.

I do not follow your logic here, are we to worry about how self defense could be viewed as aggression, when it clearly is not aggression? I believe that I am my own property and I have a right to defend my property, even if I must do so with a gun. Just our existence could be viewed (and is viewed by many) to be violence, what I mean is, you can not spend one day on this earth without commiting violence against something or at least without someone making that claim.
Logged
Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2012, 08:15:30 PM »

Hi there,

It's make a while since my last post (to busy right now ...).


Quote
I don't entirely agree. The truth is that if you abstract far enough, then market anarchists endorse violence as well. Property rights are "enforced through the barrel of a gun." If you don't accept property rights, then any attempt to use violence in defense of them is seen as aggression. Likewise, if you do accept property rights, then their efforts to steal from us are seen as aggression.

Therefore, the violence argument fails. The only way we can really argue with them is to discuss the merits of a free market system. State up front what your values are, and why market anarchism achieves them.

^I believe this is the most important recent change in my own intellectual development.

Completely agree with you on that!!! It reminded me somehow the debate I had concerning the notion of freedom.

However, giving the ''moral nature'' of a lot of political arguments, It's my guess that this argument will not be very popular  Angry
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2012, 10:35:26 PM »

I don't entirely agree. The truth is that if you abstract far enough, then market anarchists endorse violence as well. Property rights are "enforced through the barrel of a gun." If you don't accept property rights, then any attempt to use violence in defense of them is seen as aggression.

I do not follow your logic here, are we to worry about how self defense could be viewed as aggression, when it clearly is not aggression? I believe that I am my own property and I have a right to defend my property, even if I must do so with a gun. Just our existence could be viewed (and is viewed by many) to be violence, what I mean is, you can not spend one day on this earth without commiting violence against something or at least without someone making that claim.
We are not to worry about anything. Hakuna Matata. My point is that your definition of self-defense is not agreed upon. Self defense of person is one thing, defense of property is another. To someone who doesn't see property (or all types of property) the same way as you, your "defense" of property is aggression. Likewise, you see someone's violation of your property as aggression. It's all in how you see property.
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
derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2012, 11:00:40 PM »

I happen to agree with Rothbard on this one. The ability to defend my property, wheather you believe in private property or not, is moral and is rooted in the natural-rights defense of private property.
Logged
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2012, 11:43:16 PM »

I happen to agree with Rothbard on this one. The ability to defend my property, wheather you believe in private property or not, is moral and is rooted in the natural-rights defense of private property.

Good luck trying to convince an Anarcho-communist of this. They literally believe that the existence of private property is an act of aggression against those without capital and that this is morally wrong. While their arguments in defense of this are often ladden with false dichotomies, they arent as dimwitted as we would like to believe. Thats why this:

Quote
...discuss the merits of a free market system. State up front what your values are, and why market anarchism achieves them.

...is the only way forward while arguing with them.

Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2012, 01:52:16 AM »

I happen to agree with Rothbard on this one. The ability to defend my property, wheather you believe in private property or not, is moral and is rooted in the natural-rights defense of private property.
I think elsewhere on this forum I've done a good job of attacking not only NAP and natural rights, but the very possibility of coming up with a theory of natural rights that can support propertarianism in an objective way. People who want to believe in natural rights are going to do so because it supports their libertarian beliefs. You sure aren't going to be able to use them very effectively against someone who doesn't already share your perspective (even in the one successful conversion I have done, the self-ownership derivation of the NAP didn't get a very enthusiastic reception). I see it as willfully deluding ourselves into thinking that somehow our way is "right." I say "we" because I used to do it too. But the closer you look, the more you'll see that the magical goodness that libertarians attach to property is exactly what an anarcho-communist once described it as when I was debating with him: vacuous.

The place where libertarians win is in history, economics, etc. When you get into the nature of property debates and try to say property is "correct" you get into a quagmire, because you cannot consistently lay out a theory of what makes something property. It's better to confess this up front.
1) People you debate against will be impressed for your open mindedness and lack of "dogma,"
2) You will have shed the fuzziness of the moral side of the debate, and now all that's left is the more concrete subjects, where we absolutely annihilate the statists and anti-propertarians.

It's a recipe for market anarchist invincibility, in my opinion.
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
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2012, 04:07:32 AM »

I think elsewhere on this forum I've done a good job of attacking not only NAP and natural rights, but the very possibility of coming up with a theory of natural rights that can support propertarianism in an objective way.

Could you please point out where this "good job" is? I figure that we will argue about this one and so I might as well not make you repeat yourself but read it wherever on the board your position is best stated.

Logged
derick
Full Member
***
Posts: 160


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2012, 08:37:44 AM »

I think elsewhere on this forum I've done a good job of attacking not only NAP and natural rights, but the very possibility of coming up with a theory of natural rights that can support propertarianism in an objective way. People who want to believe in natural rights are going to do so because it supports their libertarian beliefs. You sure aren't going to be able to use them very effectively against someone who doesn't already share your perspective (even in the one successful conversion I have done, the self-ownership derivation of the NAP didn't get a very enthusiastic reception). I see it as willfully deluding ourselves into thinking that somehow our way is "right." I say "we" because I used to do it too. But the closer you look, the more you'll see that the magical goodness that libertarians attach to property is exactly what an anarcho-communist once described it as when I was debating with him: vacuous.

The place where libertarians win is in history, economics, etc. When you get into the nature of property debates and try to say property is "correct" you get into a quagmire, because you cannot consistently lay out a theory of what makes something property. It's better to confess this up front.
1) People you debate against will be impressed for your open mindedness and lack of "dogma,"
2) You will have shed the fuzziness of the moral side of the debate, and now all that's left is the more concrete subjects, where we absolutely annihilate the statists and anti-propertarians.

It's a recipe for market anarchist invincibility, in my opinion.

Do you define property as land only? I do not, I believe that the product of my labor is my property also. Because there is only so much labor in me, the product of my labor is part of me, and therfore my property, not yours, ours or some governmental agency. The American government didnt believe in property rights either, as it made claim to Indian lands and the resources in, on them. The Indians didnt own these lands by title or through a system of property rights but through occupying them for thousands of years.

I guess I dont understand how property rights and the right to defend them, wouldnt be at the center of any capitalist system.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2012, 06:03:04 PM »

Do you define property as land only? I do not, I believe that the product of my labor is my property also.
Lots of things can be property. I don't think I ever said that only land was property...

Quote
Because there is only so much labor in me, the product of my labor is part of me, and therfore my property, not yours, ours or some governmental agency.
Yeah, I've heard this before. Like I said in my previous post, I used the derivation of the NAP from the principle of self-ownership in the process of converting someone to market anarchism. But that was only a first step, to get a dialogue going. If you are converting someone intelligent enough, they'll quickly poke a lot of holes in that argument, and you'll have to brush it off by saying that it's just a mental exercise to get them thinking.

Quote
I guess I dont understand how property rights and the right to defend them, wouldnt be at the center of any capitalist system.
I'm not trying to say they wouldn't be at the center of the system. What I'm saying is that the decision to respect someone else's property rights or not, is just that, a decision. So living in a propertarian society is a privilege, not a right. We would be fortunate to live in a world where these are respected, but there is nothing to stop someone from coming and taking your "natural rights" away. Natural rights theory, in my experience, usually involves trying to show that property is some heavenly ordained system of human cooperation. There is no divine endorsement. So when I use the term property rights, I am not speaking in a natural rights framework.
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
Pages: [1] 2 3
  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!