Daily Anarchist Forum
August 15, 2022, 07:49:43 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] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: contradiction in freedom  (Read 33239 times)
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2011, 04:45:52 PM »

I already answered that several times in this thread.
Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2011, 05:36:59 PM »

NO!!!

YOu only told what you believed was moral or not but with no argument why it's universellay more moral. You only explained your point with individualist paradigm without showing why it is more morally acceptable.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2011, 05:55:02 PM »

You accept that you can make me your slave, and you call that true freedom.   Because not everyone will agree, you have to approach it from an individual freedom point of view.  Otherwise no one will be free.

I've done my years of arguing with communists, socialists, and all sorts of statists.  I don't have the patience to spend years pointing out every flaw and logical fallacy one on one anymore.  

Maybe someone else here wants to have a go with you.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 06:06:31 PM by Syock » Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2011, 06:13:26 PM »

 First of all, I donít say that I agree with that definition and I am not a statist, but the arguments they offer are as valuable of yours at the very moment.

Secondly, itís a completely circular argument:

Why anarcho-capitalism is more moral than others ?

Because it respect private right.

And why we should respect private right (or value it)?

Because itís moral (or because itís immortal not doing it).

Nothing easier than showing A by B and B by A.

In consequence, your first statement is incorrect because you assume that not respecting private right is immoral and slavery. 
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2011, 06:18:41 PM »

What would you call threatening the life of someone to make them do what you want for the rest of their lives?
Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2011, 06:42:51 PM »

Well, I am not totally sure of understanding what your question is. But surely, I will not call it moral or immoral, good or bad.

But donít forget that, in a left libertarian view, you will be the thief and the one who slave other if you take your propriety right since you do not enable others to use it, while it belongs to them too. 
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2011, 06:45:38 PM »

I'm not talking about land.  I am talking about your own body and life.
Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2011, 07:47:34 PM »

All depend of the context. It can be aggression but I could be other thing. But three things:
1-   Itís not because I believe that it is aggression or not that it is.
2-   Itís not because it is aggression that it is immoral
3-   Anarcom do not believe they have the right of threatening the life of someone to make them do what you want for the rest of their lives. They also fight for freedom. They won't use aggression per see since they are retaking what they own. 
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2011, 08:23:51 PM »

So lets say they come to where I have been living my entire life.  They claim everything I have.  All my food, all my tools, everything.  My options are essentially join them, kill them or starve.  

Starving is not a good option.  Killing them probably won't happen because they will have already taken all the guns, knives, flame throwers and other assorted weapons.  My only option is to join them, and do what they tell me for the rest of my life, or I will die.  

I have become an unwilling participant.  I am not free unless you consider suicide the freedom choice.  They can't claim that they are about freedom.


By the way, I find it hilarious that you even sidestep a direct question like I gave you.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 08:35:46 PM by Syock » Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2011, 09:16:51 PM »

Where I sidestep your direct question?

To answer your last statement, I donít know exactly what is the position of anarcho-communism on taking the resource of another territory.

But if suppose you are in a collective territory (by collective one Iím not saying you accepted the system), of course, you will have to share the resource (but, youíll have the right to keep your gun, tools and so on).  I see not attack to your freedom (in the sense of anarcho-communism) here.

Let me add something. If I thief take your tv, and that he doesnít want to give it you back or pay you for it. What will you do ?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 09:54:46 PM by Alricaus » Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2011, 09:56:05 PM »

If the territory was given freely by those already in or joining, then they wouldn't be claiming anything.  Their view of property rights allows them to take by force anything they see fit.  That is their position as you have stated several times. 

By taking away/sharing my means of production, and the production itself, if I do not willingly join I have nothing to survive on.  Again it is starve or join.  Again, that is not freedom, it is join or die. 

If I were to willingly join, and give them the means of production, that fits in perfectly fine with an-cap.  The problem arises when they take away the means of survival from other people.  They take away their freedom. 
Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2011, 10:06:32 PM »

Quote
By taking away/sharing my means of production

The point is precisely there. Is it really yours. If isn't, there is no attack on your freedom.

It's like geo-anarchist who believed in capitalism, but argue that since the earth has not been create by humain, if we want to take a land, we have to pay taxe to the community since we stop them of using something that belongs to everybody.

Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2011, 10:26:39 PM »

Not long ago you were making a distinction between their territory, and other territory.  Now you don't.  Your not being consistent.

I really am bored of this. 
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 10:32:04 PM by Syock » Logged

Alricaus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2011, 10:42:52 PM »

I will explain (again Ö) that I do not say that I believe in that or not. Personally, I donít fight for freedom and liberty per see; I just want to find the best system. For me, the very notion of freedom and liberty is somehow irrelevant.

I tried to explain that every form of anarchy have there own definition of freedom and I find that they are all right and wrong at the same time. The only thing I am doing is showing example of interpretation of freedom. Like I told before, my position is that liberty has to be structure and somehow impose, precisely because the humans donít agree on what is and what is not freedom.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2011, 02:43:31 AM »

Alright, I read most of it, although I began skimming near the end...

I tend to agree with Alricaus, I don't think that you can necessarily say that market anarchism is more moral than anarcho-communism. I don't really find the "moral" framework of thought that useful. Yes, there is a contradiction in freedom. An anarcho-communist once described the concept of property as "vacuous" in a discussion with me. S/he was right. But I could argue the same thing for the idea of collective ownership. In the end, markets work, socalism doesn't, and there is not really any room for discussion there. So we win.
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 [4] 5
  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!