Daily Anarchist Forum
May 24, 2019, 04:22:39 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 4
  Print  
Author Topic: WANTED: I need a Commie/Socialist style anarchist to debate Stefan Molyneux  (Read 16118 times)
magentawave
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


View Profile
« on: September 17, 2012, 11:16:18 PM »

I recently told Stefan Molyneux that instead of the usual ancap verses right minarchist debate that I'd like to hear him debate the kind of "anarchist" that doesn't believe in private property rights. He told me to set it up for him. For what its worth...  I don't understand how owning property or having employees violates the NAP and my head spins when I don't get a clear answer as to who is going to stop me in their stateless socialist society from having property rights. But hey, I've always been a seeker of the truth which is why I sincerely want to understand your position on these issues.

So to all you commie/socialist style anarchists (wink, wink)...

Who in your opinion is the best and brightest left anarchist capable of debating Stefan Molyneux? Please include their name and why you think they would qualify. A link to articles and Youtube videos would be nice too.  Smiley

Thank you very much.

Steve
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 03:35:17 AM by magentawave » Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2012, 11:55:00 AM »

I can't imagine this working out. Ancap and Ancom are based on fundamentally different subjective premises. Molyneux is big on objective this and that. Very black and white. Mind you, I'm ancap and there was a time I thought Ancoms were insane. I understand them much better now and am just totally disinterested with their value structure. But there is something approaching coherency there, its just totally offensive to a virginal ancap psyche.

 I think it would devolve to this (http://funny-bits4.blogspot.com/2012/06/politics.html#random)
Logged
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2012, 12:20:49 PM »

...I don't understand how owning property or having employees violates the NAP ...



I don't think ancoms identify with the NAP. Aggression against what?
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2012, 12:54:59 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 12:56:54 PM by macsnafu » Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
LegesNullae
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 66


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2012, 01:56:34 PM »

David Graeber and Kevin Carson are good sources on anarcho-communism and mutualism respectively, but I don't know if they would have any interest in debating Molyneux.
Logged

"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -Murray N. Rothbard
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2012, 02:39:51 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Human nature isn't real, it is simply a response to material conditions, Molynuex preaches this with peaceful parenting.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2012, 03:09:48 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Human nature isn't real, it is simply a response to material conditions, Molynuex preaches this with peaceful parenting.
I don't know what this means.  Everything has a "nature", or inherent properties to it.   And I've long held that human nature doesn't change, but rather that the circumstances (or conditions, material or otherwise) that humans operate under is what changes.  An ancap society would have different circumstances and incentives than an ancom society--or even today's status quo society.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2012, 03:15:43 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Human nature isn't real, it is simply a response to material conditions, Molynuex preaches this with peaceful parenting.
I don't know what this means.  Everything has a "nature", or inherent properties to it.   And I've long held that human nature doesn't change, but rather that the circumstances (or conditions, material or otherwise) that humans operate under is what changes.  An ancap society would have different circumstances and incentives than an ancom society--or even today's status quo society.


I'm a strong believer in nurture and will over nature and determinism what do I mean by this, well to put it simply people have limited instincts (hunger, sex drive ETC). Beyond these primal urges who we are is determined by our environments (our parents, our friends) and choices (who to hang with, what food to eat, how to act).
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2012, 03:52:01 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Human nature isn't real, it is simply a response to material conditions, Molynuex preaches this with peaceful parenting.
I don't know what this means.  Everything has a "nature", or inherent properties to it.   And I've long held that human nature doesn't change, but rather that the circumstances (or conditions, material or otherwise) that humans operate under is what changes.  An ancap society would have different circumstances and incentives than an ancom society--or even today's status quo society.


I'm a strong believer in nurture and will over nature and determinism what do I mean by this, well to put it simply people have limited instincts (hunger, sex drive ETC). Beyond these primal urges who we are is determined by our environments (our parents, our friends) and choices (who to hang with, what food to eat, how to act).

The nature vs. nurture conflict has to do with biological factors vs. social circumstances, and I believe that both have an impact to some degree.  "Human nature", on the other hand is not strictly biological, as it tends to have more to do with how people react under different sets of circumstances. It encompasses psychology and sociology as well as biology.
Human nature doesn't change, it merely has different responses to different environments, which would seem to be a logical and obvious point to make.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2012, 05:34:57 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Human nature isn't real, it is simply a response to material conditions, Molynuex preaches this with peaceful parenting.
I don't know what this means.  Everything has a "nature", or inherent properties to it.   And I've long held that human nature doesn't change, but rather that the circumstances (or conditions, material or otherwise) that humans operate under is what changes.  An ancap society would have different circumstances and incentives than an ancom society--or even today's status quo society.


I'm a strong believer in nurture and will over nature and determinism what do I mean by this, well to put it simply people have limited instincts (hunger, sex drive ETC). Beyond these primal urges who we are is determined by our environments (our parents, our friends) and choices (who to hang with, what food to eat, how to act).

The nature vs. nurture conflict has to do with biological factors vs. social circumstances, and I believe that both have an impact to some degree.  "Human nature", on the other hand is not strictly biological, as it tends to have more to do with how people react under different sets of circumstances. It encompasses psychology and sociology as well as biology.
Human nature doesn't change, it merely has different responses to different environments, which would seem to be a logical and obvious point to make.


Every human is has their own nature, their is not human nature
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2012, 06:58:43 PM »

The nature vs. nurture conflict has to do with biological factors vs. social circumstances, and I believe that both have an impact to some degree.  "Human nature", on the other hand is not strictly biological, as it tends to have more to do with how people react under different sets of circumstances. It encompasses psychology and sociology as well as biology.
Human nature doesn't change, it merely has different responses to different environments, which would seem to be a logical and obvious point to make.


Every human is has their own nature, their is not human nature

Well, don't leave us hanging!  What is human nature??
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 05:35:18 PM »

Every human is has their own nature, their is not human nature

Is has their own nature?

Their is not human nature?

HuhHuhHuh
Logged

"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." -Seraphim of Sarov

"There is no ideology. There is no guru. There is only us, and this, and the silence." -Mark Manson
magentawave
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 08:28:03 PM »

I can't imagine this working out. Ancap and Ancom are based on fundamentally different subjective premises. Molyneux is big on objective this and that. Very black and white. Mind you, I'm ancap and there was a time I thought Ancoms were insane. I understand them much better now and am just totally disinterested with their value structure. But there is something approaching coherency there, its just totally offensive to a virginal ancap psyche.

 I think it would devolve to this (http://funny-bits4.blogspot.com/2012/06/politics.html#random)

I know they are very different but I'd still like to hear one of them explain how they would stop humans from controlling the means of production in their own businesses and hiring employees, etc. with Stefan present.

That link you left doesn't go anywhere.
Logged
magentawave
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 08:32:26 PM »

Ancoms are basically just radical egalitarians--leftists to the umpteenth degree. Any ancap vs ancom debate has to take the different fundamental premises and goals into consideration.  

But yeah, I agree that it seems that ancoms want human nature to change--if they are truly anarchist, then in no way can they justify using coercion to prevent "capitalist" acts like voluntary employer-employee relationships or property rights agreements.

Furthermore, they're usually pretty weak on economics and think that a just and efficient allocation of resources will magically occur by political agreement among members of society.


Right. I have yet to meet even one ancom that had a clue about economics. It seems they are always stuck in this "corporations/business is evil" paradigm unless you're a craftsman doinking away in your little shop all by yourself.
Logged
magentawave
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2012, 08:40:46 PM »

David Graeber and Kevin Carson are good sources on anarcho-communism and mutualism respectively, but I don't know if they would have any interest in debating Molyneux.

And just to confirm, are these the two people you are recommending?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson

Thank you!

Steve
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!