Xerox's failure to protect their intellectual property is Xerox's problem. And last I checked Microsoft wasn't part of the government so they can bail out Apple all they want. And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
FYI - those who oppose IP (myself included) aren't just opposing IP laws, or the words "patent" and "copyright". We really do oppose the very idea of intellectual property, i.e., property in ideas.
I don't want to turn this into an IP debate. I just wanted to point out that your intended reductio ad absurdum is precisely the position that many on this site advocate. If you are going to reject this position as "immoral and coercive" and put it on a level with statism, you had better back it up with some logic (but not in this thread, please).
Kingmonkey: Xerox's failure to protect their intellectual property is Xerox's problem. And last I checked Microsoft wasn't part of the government
Topic on intellectual property rights.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/2331.aspx
Juan:Ah, so cops defend life liberty and property ? That's news isn't it ? Last time I checked the state and its cops are by far the biggest destructors of property righs. Consider for instance how many people are jailed because of smoking pot. Then tell me who does the jailing ? My limited understanding tells me it's cops who gladly shoot their fellows when their fellows disobey the tyrannical dictates of the state - but maybe I got something wrong....
I didn't say that cops "defend life liberty and property"; I only meant to suggest that stabbing a police officer who writes you up might not be the best way to advance the cause of liberty.
But that is just my opinion.
"We have thus stepped back from the position our ancestors occupied; for we allow under the flag of justice, and consecrate in the name of the law, what was imposed on them by violence alone."
Jon Irenicus: It might just be semantics, but my impression is that many of the "social" anarchists (not sure why they're dubbed such; perhaps because they're not economic anarchists?) see market exchange as inherently demeaning and exploitative, and see private property as the root of all hierarchy. I am able to deflect these silly criticisms, but they seem so deeply entrenched in these views that they rule out market anarchism automatically. My guess is that this is partially due to ignorance of basic economics and what market anarchism in fact consists in. It seems as soon as they hear the word "market" or "capitalism", rational thinking ceases. I have no problem with them attempting their communes or whatever they wish, provided they do not interfere with market orders. However, I also find their rejection of private property atavistic and reactionary. The problem is, on the one hand, "anarcho"-capitalists who are little else but vulgar libertarians who want the current model minus the state, and "anarcho"-communists/-socialists/-syndicalists who think they ought to have the right to violate market transactions, and justify the State whenever the opportunity comes up, in order to "tame" capitalism. -Jon
It might just be semantics, but my impression is that many of the "social" anarchists (not sure why they're dubbed such; perhaps because they're not economic anarchists?) see market exchange as inherently demeaning and exploitative, and see private property as the root of all hierarchy. I am able to deflect these silly criticisms, but they seem so deeply entrenched in these views that they rule out market anarchism automatically. My guess is that this is partially due to ignorance of basic economics and what market anarchism in fact consists in. It seems as soon as they hear the word "market" or "capitalism", rational thinking ceases. I have no problem with them attempting their communes or whatever they wish, provided they do not interfere with market orders. However, I also find their rejection of private property atavistic and reactionary. The problem is, on the one hand, "anarcho"-capitalists who are little else but vulgar libertarians who want the current model minus the state, and "anarcho"-communists/-socialists/-syndicalists who think they ought to have the right to violate market transactions, and justify the State whenever the opportunity comes up, in order to "tame" capitalism.
-Jon
I agree entirely.
If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how people want to personally spend their money and time!
It makes no sense to add the word "capitalism", to have an anarcho + an adjective, if we are talking consistant voluntaryism. "Capitalism" would only be one optional add-on, not what defines it. Anarcho-capitalism does not equal voluntaryism in any absolute sense. It is only one form of it.
If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist.
No. If you respect others rights as individuals, you're an anarchist, plain and simple. Whether or not you're a "capitalist" is entirely irrelevant to that.
If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists!
I prefer to call myself a market anarchist - which is a broader movement than anarcho-capitalism. I despise the term anarcho-capitalism because (1) it confuses the hell out of people (2) it's a red flag to a bull and a self-contradictary term with respect to most anarchists and (3) the word capitalism itself has been rendered into an anti-concept or package deal term.
The problem with your view here is that you're acting as if anarcho-capitalism has a rightful monopoly on anarchism. In effect, you're proclaiming that only anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, that all consistant voluntaryists are anarcho-capitalists.
Nitroadict: I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature. Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.
I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature. Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems. That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.
It really depends on what one means by the term heirarchy. In a certain sense, I do think that heirarchy is natural, and in another sense I think it is a bad thing. I do think that absolute egalitarianism does contradict human nature because quite obviously diversity and equality contradict eachother and human beings are rather diverse. But that doesn't stop me from mutually respecting some egalitarians who are voluntaryists and it doesn't stop me from desiring to see egalitarian tendencies increased.
Stranger: Jon Irenicus: Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified. -Jon The current market is producing what consumers want in the best possible way given the constraints imposed by government. It is as justified as any other market.
Jon Irenicus: Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified. -Jon
Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified.
The current market is producing what consumers want in the best possible way given the constraints imposed by government. It is as justified as any other market.
The problem is that we don't current have a free market. Non-free markets are not equally justified as free markets. They are distorted.
Out of curiosity did you post that at RevLeft?
No, it was in the main anarchist message board on myspace actually.
Ego: not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :| Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :|
Are there any anarcho-capitalists here who don't label themselves as anarcho-capitalist?
The question is circular.
This issue bugs the hell out of me. It seems so simple, any political movements which follow the NAP, ZAP, are voluntarist, truly anarchist etc should be able to get along. But somehow they don't. For example, one of my good friends from the far left calls himself a market socialist and is basically the same as an ancap. I showed him some Rothbard and he digs it and thinks we can be allies. On the other hand some of his anarcho communist pals from the far left went to see a lecture by David D. Friedman and brought a pie and... threw the pie in his face when he was speaking. No joke! Someone who theoretically should be allies with any anarchist gets a pie thrown in his face by people who should be his fellow anarchists in revolution. Its things like that that can make you suspect humanity in general are just too stupid, unprincipled and cowardly to ever be truly free. I still have some hope left though. Maybe the vulgar libertarians and the reverse (vulgar far left anarchists? I dont know what we should call them) can be convinced of their errors. Imagine how powerful a true anarchy without adjectives movement could be!
majevska: This issue bugs the hell out of me. It seems so simple, any political movements which follow the NAP, ZAP, are voluntarist, truly anarchist etc should be able to get along. But somehow they don't. For example, one of my good friends from the far left calls himself a market socialist and is basically the same as an ancap. I showed him some Rothbard and he digs it and thinks we can be allies. On the other hand some of his anarcho communist pals from the far left went to see a lecture by David D. Friedman and brought a pie and... threw the pie in his face when he was speaking. No joke! Someone who theoretically should be allies with any anarchist gets a pie thrown in his face by people who should be his fellow anarchists in revolution. Its things like that that can make you suspect humanity in general are just too stupid, unprincipled and cowardly to ever be truly free. I still have some hope left though. Maybe the vulgar libertarians and the reverse (vulgar far left anarchists? I dont know what we should call them) can be convinced of their errors. Imagine how powerful a true anarchy without adjectives movement could be!
In my experience, market anarchists tend to be far more tolerant of other schools of anarchism than most anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists are. Some of the socialist types claim to be all about anarchism without adjectives, yet they essentially exclude market anarchism. Although it seems to me that the consensus at this board is also a bit too intolerant of more socialistic anarchist traditions. And I have a similar friend who is a mutualist who is also a fan of Rothbard and doesn't quarrel with market anarchists.