Daily Anarchist Forum
September 23, 2019, 03:47:10 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: Against Anarchism essay  (Read 27706 times)
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2011, 01:15:51 PM »

Question: You guys are familiar with the Tower of Babel story, right? How is it useful to be not picking terminology using a rational method? I mean, if we just pick our personally preferred words for everything that'd be pretty hard to communicate.
I just think of it the same way I would the terminology for office equipment. I call something a "desk" because everyone knows what I'm talking about. If that word bugs me, I could call it a namborro, but that just isn't what people use. Language is only useful if other people use it.

Quote
Also, I'm wondering what you call a state of nature where there is no organized system yet.
I think it's fine to describe it as anarchy, or a state of nature.

Quote
Most people call this state anarchy. So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?
The anarchist word for this "state of nature," that others refer to as "anarchy," would just be "anarchy" or "state of nature."

I disagree with Seth a little on this one. "Chaos" is just a word that people falsely associate with the "state of nature."

But, alas, I'm spending too much time talking about definitions.

Quote
How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.
You've pretty much got it right here. Assuming that by "government" you are referring to that small area of overlap between your own definition of government and our definition of anarchy  Grin .....then you would be correct. It's a bad association that the state has nailed into our heads for a long time. Absence of government is supposed to be chaos....

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"  ?

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.

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.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 01:28:14 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » 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
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #17 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.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2011, 02:09:48 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.

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.

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.
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
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2011, 05:37:30 PM »

So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?

Chaos.

How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.



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.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 05:40:29 PM by Seth King » Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #21 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

Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2011, 06:09:21 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.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #23 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.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2011, 08:02:39 PM »

Quote
We need to get rid of the rampant subjectivism in the liberty movement or we can't really argue for anything.
I was hoping this could be saved for a different thread, and keep it out of this one. I'm prepared to respond, but I'm going to withhold it, and use it to start a different thread later.

Quote
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.
Again, the whole "true is true, better is better" thing is for another thread. Let's try to stay focused.

Quote
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.
MOST people already have some subconscious understanding of what is right and wrong, we just have to help them see that the state isn't an exception...for those that are openly fine with murder in any context, I won't be trying to convert them.

Quote
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?
I accept it as true in the present, but I suspect that will change if you stick around.

Quote
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.
War, or rather, conflict, is inevitable. Humans will always use some violence. War in the sense we understand it today, is not about people disagreeing over important things. It's about accumulation of power to the point where the costs of conflict can be spread around, and the benefits concentrated. In a free society, where people pay for the consequences of their actions, wars (or rather, fights) will be infrequent and short-lived, because no one wants to bear those costs. Think about how serious a conflict would be for you to physically go to war with your neighbor...it would take a LOT.

 
Quote
And if you don't accept my not accepting you as you are, then you're being a hypocrite.
?

Quote
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.
This was touched on at one point in the "voting" thread. But again, I'd rather have you start another objectivism vs subjectivism thread, so that this debate doesn't get buried in the Challenges to Anarchism section.

Quote
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.
Subjectivism vs objectivism, that's for another thread. Feel free to start it. The discussion about ideas being outdated is over.

Recap: At this point, most of the arguments have boiled down to objectivism vs subjectivism in the liberty movement, so start a new thread. Otherwise, I still don't see anything that makes you NOT an anarchist. Putting aside labels and definitions, there is nothing (other than subjectivism vs objectivism) that we disagree about. We slightly disagree on methods, but principles all seem the same. Objectivism does not fatally separate someone from the anarchist movement, Stefan being the leader there.

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.
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
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2011, 08:22:53 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.



I never said you can't call it want you want. But don't expect me to agree with you.

Really, I'm done with this whole argument. Words aren't science. They are subjective.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2011, 11:15:02 PM »

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.

If your next post on this thread does not name a specific principle, and give an example of some way by which your ideal world differs from that of an anarchist's, then I will not need to respond. You are the one trying to write your way out of an identity crisis, desperately avoiding the mental realization that you are an anarchist. I've never seen someone get so close, and then keep resisting. It's interesting though.
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
wissler
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
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!