Daily Anarchist Forum
August 18, 2022, 11:45:54 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 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: An Open Letter to Anarchists of all stripes  (Read 25738 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2012, 11:02:29 PM »

What? I deconstruct your argument and I get an emoticon as a response? This is not what I was expecting from you...
You didn't deconstruct my argument. My wink was merely because I felt your statement is funny. Political action (which includes things like teaching people, etc.) is the only way to get things done Liberty-wise. The black market is just a part of life; black markets do no more to help than any other market exchanges, presuming that we're not talking about revolutionary force against the State (i.e., another form of political action). Coups have overthrown the state (political action). Men have educated themselves and others on Liberty for revolution (like the American Revolution). That was political action too. You're assuming that I'm defining political action extremely narrowly. Not at all. It includes things like party politics, revolutions, counterrevolutions, populace pressure, coup d'états, ideological converting, party cadre structures, etc. etc. These are the only ways to make change; the Marxists, for one thing, have demonstrated how Power can be revolutionized to an ideology. Classical Liberals have demonstrated a revolution against Power, which succeeded in bringing about the Industrial Revolution even. So politics are as fundamental to Liberty -- and always have been -- as butter is to bread. Black market exchanges (eg, want some weed?) do no more to bring down the State than legal exchanges. It's just all the leftist sectarians who are against politics, holding us back.

I stand by my statement: political action is one of the only courses of action to take for Liberty (that makes sense).
Your statement was deconstructed. I converted your sentence "In fact, I support further division. I would like to see the cancer of the Agorists and anti-political Black Marketeers cut from the Libertarian movement," into a propositional statement that reflects your stance, and I showed that it is false. The only thing you can do is challenge the way I made the conversion. The reasoning I made is 100% accurate. The statement was shown to be false.

Saying people who oppose voting should splinter off from the liberty movement is absolutely absurd, and that's what brought about this confrontation. People need to be called out for making ridiculous claims. In return, I expect that I would be called out as well, that's what the forum is for. If we aren't learning from each other, then what are we doing?

As for the claim that politics helped spur the industrial revolution, I disagree. Most of what I've studied involves political changes that were just reacting to the inevitable. The politics just changed to reflect the underlying changes that were occurring. The politics were epiphenomenal. For a modern day illustration you could think about RP: Ron Paul couldn't do anything useful unless people already wanted freedom, in which case we would have better options.

Also, the broad definition of political action you introduced to include conversion does not make sense. That's my area of focus, and I find political action to be futile in almost all instances.

No, but I studied it in the past and find it very interesting and useful. If I have to dust off the predicate calculus and propositional logic, you know it's business time.
As an Austrian, you know someone is prevaricating when they are using math and applying it to human action. (By the way, I'm skilled in calculus myself).
There is nothing wrong with using formal logic (math) to analyze the truth value of claims. Not only is it not wrong, it is the most illustrative way of thinking I have ever encountered.
PS: Predicate calculus has nothing to do with the tangent line problem, nor the area problem (likely what you are claiming to have background in). It involves thinking of the world in terms of non-continuous functions. In my example, I thought about measuring effectiveness, and noting that it depends on the person. Nothing anti-austrian about it. But even if it was anti-austrian, that wouldn't matter. That's part of your problem. Anything that isn't rothbardian is automatically rejected. It's almost a cult-like obsession. A good example of this (other than this thread) was when you said you wanted to write something "disproving" mutualism before you even knew what it represented. Classic symptoms of a religion. Rothbard isn't god.
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
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2012, 11:11:31 PM »

OK. On the math point: http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp

Human action cannot be quantified. If you read Man, Economy, and State, you will find the reasoning for this absolute claim. Your math claims are just as valid to me as the Keynesians. That is: not.
Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2012, 11:17:42 PM »

Saying people who oppose voting should splinter off from the liberty movement is absolutely absurd, and that's what brought about this confrontation.
Rothbard disproved your line of thought long ago: http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

Brilliant article by the way, and not ridiculous claims. And, yes, someday when I have more influence, I'd like to split the anti-political sectarian left from the movement. At least that's my current stance.

Quote
Also, the broad definition of political action you introduced to include conversion does not make sense. That's my area of focus, and I find political action to be futile in almost all instances.
Oh. I'm talking about not only converting people ideologically, but spurning them to political action as well. If conversions are not going to spurn more people to political action, then it's worthless to do anything in the first place (sectarianism).

Classic symptoms of a religion. Rothbard isn't god.
False definition of religion/god. Inapplicable.

Quote
A good example of this (other than this thread) was when you said you wanted to write something "disproving" mutualism before you even knew what it represented.
Someone ASKED me if I could do an article on disproving mutualism. I said, yes, that could be a potentially great idea. I just put it on the list. It's not like I'm going to do it before I read it.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 11:29:11 PM by Rothbardian » Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2012, 11:26:34 PM »

Anyway, I wasn't looking for a debate. You and your leftism can go take a hike. Grin
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2012, 01:04:58 AM »

OK. On the math point: http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp

Human action cannot be quantified. If you read Man, Economy, and State, you will find the reasoning for this absolute claim. Your math claims are just as valid to me as the Keynesians. That is: not.
Instead of investigating, you again cite the holy book.

You are taking a very narrow definition of math. Propositional logic falls under the umbrella. I can assure you that this is not what MES is referring to. To equate what I'm talking about with Keynesianism shows you don't understand what I'm talking about. Math is the purest form of reasoning that we can ever work with. Mises strove to make economics math-like, in the sense that it was completely rigorous in the application of axioms to derive theorems. While this goal was a little bit too ambitious, he ended up doing something useful, and so I respect him for that. Anyways, the point is that even Mises understood the philosophy of math. When people at the mises institute complain about math in economics, what they are referring to is building complex models of human behavior with the hopes that we can plan an economy. That has nothing to do with math in the philosophical sense. That is just an application. When I go and find the truth value of a statement, there is nothing anti-austrian about it. I have to repeat myself and say that it wouldn't matter if it did. Austrianism is not the benchmark that we use to judge the validity of an idea. That would be the same as saying that you judge the validity of ideas based upon how well it meshes with your current ideas. Unfortunately that is what I have accused you of doing in prior posts, and the whole reason I started this discussion. It's something I've observed, and waited for an opportunity to confront you over. The comment about splitting the movement was an appropriate time. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am trying to make you uncomfortable with the hope that it will encourage you to think about what I'm saying. Dissonance is painful, but important to experience.

side note: As for human action not being quantifiable, that has nothing to do with the above, but I would like to challenge that as well. I'd say that no human today can quantify the decision-making process, but it's incorrect to claim that it is impossible to do so. The brain is just a biological computer that takes inputs and returns outputs. Deterministic, quantifiable.
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
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2012, 02:12:34 AM »

Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 02:32:57 AM by Rothbardian » Logged

Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2012, 06:15:58 AM »

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.

So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?
Umm... I made a comment on the nature of property and how it relates to different anarchist schools of thought, and you accuse me of wanting to steal from people?

Well, someone up there in the exchange made the claim that if they don't believe in my right to my own stuff they felt like they could just take it. Or at least that is the sure outcome of what you said.

Seems like your "anarchy" is just roving gangs stealing what they want but hollering that they are not "thieves" since they don't "honor" your right to own anything. What next? Not even the right to own your own body? This is not free-will, voluntary, mutual exchange and cooperation --- it is thuggery.
Logged
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM »

Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.

You can't really have expected to get away calling agorism a cancer that needs to be cut out of the movement on a forum full of agorists without someone objecting. You certainly were asking for it.
Logged
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2012, 08:27:24 AM »

... You can't really have expected to get away calling agorism a cancer that needs to be cut out of the movement on a forum full of agorists without someone objecting. You certainly were asking for it.

These labels really get in the way, don't they? I always only want to know: "do you believe in free-will, voluntary cooperation among men with no use of aggression to control them"? If so, we can talk!
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2012, 12:40:08 PM »

Dude, I really don't care. *Yawn.* And I'm going to read something interesting right now, perhaps some Don Quixote or Nisbet's The Quest for Community. I don't know. But your dissonance nonsense -- which I didn't ask for -- is boring me. You're wrong for obvious practical reasons that Rothbard layed out all in his essay reply to Konkin. He has definitively proven the agorist/anti-political position wrong, in countless of his thousands of pages. I'd like to do more reading on this on my own time, but right now you're boring me. I simply made a simple comment, that's all. (Didn't want a debate, wasn't up for one, that's why I'm not even trying). When my essay For Political Anarchism comes out I suppose you'll see the fallacy of your faulty logic. Unless of course you will have dissonance.

Anyway, I'm ignoring you from now on. You can return the favour likewise.
I was afraid this might happen. You would rather ignore me and enjoy the safety that cult worship affords you. Regardless, I dispelled a few myths about austrian school economics and other subjects for the benefit of others who read the thread. You can ignore it all. All I can hope is that I will help other, more open-minded people to grow beyond the rothbardian stage of anarchist thought.
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
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2012, 12:46:08 PM »

If there are large communes founded on property that the commune owns; then that is great. Just don't come take all my stuff because you want it for your commune.
And what if the people who want to start the commune don't believe in the legitimacy of your claim on the property? It's analogous to how we don't respect the state's claim on all the property in a geographic area. I have to take back all my claims that ancom is not real anarchism. I was wrong.
So you intend to just use force and coercion to take what you want?  You are different from the State in what way?
Umm... I made a comment on the nature of property and how it relates to different anarchist schools of thought, and you accuse me of wanting to steal from people?

Well, someone up there in the exchange made the claim that if they don't believe in my right to my own stuff they felt like they could just take it. Or at least that is the sure outcome of what you said.

Seems like your "anarchy" is just roving gangs stealing what they want but hollering that they are not "thieves" since they don't "honor" your right to own anything. What next? Not even the right to own your own body? This is not free-will, voluntary, mutual exchange and cooperation --- it is thuggery.

I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.
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 #41 on: March 22, 2012, 02:27:55 PM »

... I didn't say these were my preferences, so this is not "my anarchy." I'm not an anarcho-communist. I'm trying to help people understand what ancoms think. Anarcho-communism is different from market anarchism. But which one is voluntary or nonaggressive depends entirely on which property rights, if any, a person chooses to respect. And you cannot prove that your system of property rights is inherently good or moral. That is my point. I'm not endorsing ancom, I'm explaining why it is still anarchism. I certainly don't like it any more than you do.

Then the "anarchy" you describe is not anarchy. It is domination of the majority by a minority as surely as Stalinism is/was. Besides the historical examples of the unworkable mess that arises when something is "owned by everyone"; we have the entire trust of Austrian economics against it as well.

The problem is that I know how the word "Liberal" came to mean socialism and now I have to put up with those who want to have a ruling council and call that anarchy! George Orwell call your office. (white courtesy phone please)

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


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2012, 02:43:14 PM »

True, if you believe in planning councils, that's not anarchy. Most people who call themselves anarcho-communists are actually democratic socialists. I still stand by that. But anti-propertarianism is not inherently or necessarily inconsistent with anarchism. History can't prove or disprove it, in the same way that history cannot prove or disprove whether market anarchism is anarchism.
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
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2012, 10:00:23 PM »

Quote
These labels really get in the way, don't they? I always only want to know: "do you believe in free-will, voluntary cooperation among men with no use of aggression to control them"? If so, we can talk!

Certainly true, labels kind of are a double edged sword in this respect. Also, I don't think any AnComm is going to disagree with your second statement, at least thats what I gather from my Kropotkin obsessed friend (sadly he's the only other anarchist I know IRL...). Its the Marxists and especially the Trotskyists that want to force communism on you for your 'own good.'
Logged
Mark Stoval
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2012, 06:04:38 AM »

... Its the Marxists and especially the Trotskyists that want to force communism on you for your 'own good.'

It would be great if they would just call themselves "Marxists" or "Trotskyists" rather than claim to be anarchists. If you have some "ruling counsel" then you have "rulers". Can they not see that? (or maybe they do and don't care to admit it?)

I can also say that anyone who wants to use force on you "for your own good" does not really have your own good in mind.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  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!