Resolving Anarchist Conflict

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

facety — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:08:22 GMT

It seems to me that there would be problems that arise between the SA's and the MA's, not because of differing theories of organization, but because of differing definitions of aggression. Brainpolice said that as long as everyone agreed not to violate the NAP there would be no problem. But, because SA's and MA's have different beliefs about what constitutes aggression there would most certainly be problems. SA's believe that keeping a laborer from owning property that is not currently being possessed by someone else is an aggression. MA's believe that keeping a laborer from retaining his property in periods of non-use is an aggression. Suppose a MA had control over a piece of farm land that he had tilled once, but was not currently farming on. Under MA theory, he would have right to this property derived from the principle of first-use. Now suppose a SA sees the currently unused land and begins to farm on it. Under SA theory, he would have a right to this property since the land was not currently being used. Both would be justified under their respective views of ownership, and both would have claims against the other for violation of the NAP. Although Brainpolice is right to believe that both variations of anarchism would be permissible in a anarchist society, I believe it might be impossible for the two to co-exist, since their would be no clear definition of aggression.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

chin — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:02:07 GMT

Really enjoyed the article. It seems to me that ancaps are more willing to extend the olive branch than the syndicalists. I haven't really heard ancaps expressing intolerance for voluntary socialism within communities but in my experience in talking with my professors and other students of that persuasion, private property rights and the whole boss thing seem to be off the plate for me in my community. I have heard guys like Walter Block express acceptance for voluntary socialist communities too, but guys like Chomsky seem to have a problem making allowances for the ancap's desires. Maybe I am wrong about my impression but I just haven't felt particularly welcomed when Honestly and politely trying to come together with them.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

Brainpolice — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:08:36 GMT

Market anarchism is not the only philosophy or form of organization that is consistant with the NAP. Various forms of socialism are also perfectly consistant with the NAP, as they aren't political systems but voluntary forms of organization. Market anarchists did not invent the idea of non-initiation of force. Market anarchism does not have a monopoly on voluntary interpersonal relations.

The entire point of my pluralist perspective is that any form of organization is legitimate so long as noone is forced into or out of it. This includes forms of organization that may be considered "socialistic". Genuine social anarchism, in order to be consistant, must recognize the right of individual secession. If it doesn't, then it isn't really anarchism in the first place.

Cork2, you seem to repeatedly miss the point. ANY personal preferance (including ones for organization) gets a green light so long as noone forces anyone into it. This means that so long as they are voluntarily persued, things such a desire for worker's collectives is perfectly consistant with a free society.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

Cork2 — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:32:07 GMT

You cannot "compete" ideologies without first converting all humans to obey the non-aggression principle. If you did not do it first, a minority group is enough to conquer the world. For example, if a minority group invented a nuclear weapon first or biotechnology enough to conquer all people, it has the power to take over the world. The minority group MUST obey the non-aggression principle so it would not do such hideous crimes.

You must turn all humans to understand the non-aggression principle for competititon to prosper. Non-aggression equates market anarchism; so all people must support market anarchism for competition to prosper.

Also, anarcho-communists would use newly invented biotechnology to kill all the upper class bourgeoisie. They must obey non-aggresion and understand market anarchism to prevent.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

Nitroadict — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:40:37 GMT

This sends me back to my own theory that the minarchists would really be doing their part if they served only as educational gateways to libertarianism without doing any political activism (no LP, less attempts at reformism, etc.); whether it's vulgar or not, as eventually the Mises forum is recommended reading for many libertarians, and that is where I find most challenging debate going on that would challenge vulgar libertarianism right in it's tracks, in almost real time, no doubt.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

Brainpolice — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:51:46 GMT

I agree that some have used the concept of vulgar libertarianism out of context, but I think that vulgar libertarianism is more serious of a problem then you seem to think it is. I see it as dominant in the American libertarian movement in some ways, as the majority American libertarians come from a distinctly conservative background.

Many of the anarcho-syndicalists in particular that I've encountered are definitely irrationally intolerant and hostile towards market and individualist oriented anarchists. This is unfortunate. But I've also met some socialistic anarchists who are very open to market anarchism and are true voluntaryists. They're "free market socialists" basically.

re: Resolving Anarchist Conflict

Cork — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:16:28 GMT

Some anarcho-capitalists definitely do conflate corporatism with the free market, but honestly, the whole “vulgar libertarian” thing has become a witch hunt. I strongly agreed with the original point Carson was making, but I now feel like the whole “vulgar libertarian” thing has become over used and misused. And there are a pretty good number of ancaps who aren’t anywhere close to being cultural conservatives (just look at anti-state.com for cryin’ out loud). These charges, leveled against us by “social anarchists,” are often untrue and hysterical. Besides, they’re against any form of capitalism anyway (state capitalism or non), so what do they care about privilege?

“Social anarchists” are just goofy and annoying. If the US government started rounding us up and putting us in concentration camps tomorrow, they would go protest McDonald’s for hurting animals or something ridiculous. If you call to cut the military budget, a social anarchist will probably complain that it already suffers from “inadequate funding.”