My Concept Of Anarchy

Link and link(!)

Ego:

Link

Yeah great, I saw that.  Which one are you reading?  All of them?

 

This is the perspective that I'm advocating in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives

Anarchism without adjectives (from the Spanish "anarquismo sin adjetivos"), in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, ... [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools."

Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone—even in theory. Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check. Regardless, to these anarchists the economic preferences are considered to be of "secondary importance" to abolishing all authority, with free experimentation the one rule of a free society.

The term anarchism has been adopted as a self-description by movements with different ideological origins; examples of such movements include anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, eco-anarchism and crypto-anarchism.

Fred Woodworth describes his anarchism as being without adjectives, saying: "I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation."^[7]

Some anarchists who do not subscribe to "anarchism without adjectives" oppose toleration of anarcho-capitalism by "anarchists without adjectives." For example, the author(s) of An Anarchist FAQ who identify themselves as social anarchists, argues that the tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" should not extend to anarcho-capitalism. Conversely, the web site Anarchism.net aims at promoting tolerance and partnership between various strains of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. ^[9] Market anarchist anarchist Roderick T. Long has argued that the difference between mutualists, which An Anarchist FAQ accepts as legitimate anarchists, and anarcho-capitalists is so small as to yield "no defensible grounds for accepting any dichotomy between" them.

I agree with Long!

All of them.

Niccolò:

Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.

There isn't

Brainpolice:

Why do you keep falling back on the political left-right dichotomy? It's gotten rather silly.

It is silly...but you're (one of) the one(s) who keeps calling yourself a leftist.

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

Brainpolice:

Actually for the past few hours you've basically been argueing that the entirety of the "anarchist left" aren't voluntaryists and that they support random violence. The entire point of the OP is that any personal preferance for economic organization is compatible with anarchism so long as it is persued through free association and competition.

But a good portion of the "left" doesn't believe in private property.  E.g., they don't believe that converting your property is theft or force or anything other than voluntarism.  It isn't just a matter of "tolerance for different forms of organization".  If they want to set up communes within a regime of private property, they're "anarcho-capitalists" (whether you like the term or not), and not a problem.  But propertarians and anti-propertarians must come into conflict.

Brainpolice:

The entire point of the OP is that any personal preference for economic organization is compatible with anarchism so long as it is pursued through free association and competition.

Ego:

"...anyone who wants to shrink the state"

Ego, shrinking the state (minarchism) is in direct conflict with what BP mentioned earlier (free association):

"In an atmosphere of free association, noone may legitimately impose their preferential form of organization on anyone else, either directly (through rulership itself) or indirectly (through democracy)."

Shrinking the state is not going to get rid of the state, hence, not getting rid of democracy, hence, the conflict with a shrunken state existing because it still imposes coercion over those who live within the state with it's presence & nature.


Honestly Ego, it really just seems you're flopping around in punditry for the hell of it, either intentionally or unintentionally.  At this point it sounds like you endorse warfare over welfare simply because welfare is "leftist", and warfare is not "leftist"; I just don't know.

Paul:

Niccolò:

Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.

There isn't

Oh yeah... You're right...

 

Niccolò:

Ego:

I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare.

 

Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.

 

Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of god, since to sin is, at root, to actively deny gods authority? So the theivery of the state would most probably be judged the same as the genocide it perpetuates?

Niccolò:

Oh yeah... You're right...

Wow, that's a really convincing tale...(I especially liked the part where the blood type is the same as in the shroud of Turin; a particularly well known fake)

(Hey, I know, someone take a sample of that blood to one of those clone-your-dead-pet companies!!)

 

Oh, FWIW, I'm currently running an experiment.  I put a piece of bread on the desk in front of me, and I'm currently doubting that it will spontaneously turn into a lump of human heart meat, just like the monk in the story.  So far, it's still bread, but I'll give it a few minutes...if God wants to convince me, it won't be difficult!

Niccolò:

ThorsMitersaw:

or hope

 

Indeed, one or the other seems to be most likely. Unfortunately, Rothbard was too eager for success in his lifetime for his own good. He played the game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and got burnt for it. Even more unfortunate, his example of opportunism and impatience seem to breathe into the movement of modern libertarianism.

 

I agree with SEK3 entirely. We're strict Rothbardians, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard!

I totally agree!

I only did not know how best to word it

Shrinking the state is not going to get rid of the state, hence, not getting rid of democracy, hence, the conflict with a shrunken state existing because it still imposes coercion over those who live within the state with it's presence & nature.

We first have to start moving the whole system in our direction; even moderate miniarchists want to do that.

Niccolò:

Paul:

Niccolò:

Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.

There isn't

Oh yeah... You're right...

It always makes me antsy when we confuse Catholicism with Christianity--not to mention confusing either one with the question of God's existence. But if you insist on discussing Roman miracles...

--Len

I've tried writing this from a thousand different angles; I'll settle upon this. Why do I support "rampant warfare" over "rampant welfare" when dealing with democratic systems?

There is nothing inherently wrong with warfare and there is nothing inherently wrong with welfare. What is inherently wrong is stealing money from others in order to pay for it.

In a democratic system, the money stolen in order to fund a welfare system goes right into the pockets of millions of potential voters (and gives comfort to those on the edge who now feel safe incase they lose their jobs); this buys more votes and causes more poverty, which causes more people to get on welfare, which buys more votes and causes more poverty, etc. In a democratic system, the money stolen in order to fund a war goes into fewer, richer pockets. Don't even think about counting soldiers; many soldiers don't particularly enjoy losing limbs in wars, so fighting wars does not buy soldiers' votes!

In other words, neither warfare nor welfare are at all immoral; it's just their current method of funding that needs to go. Democratic welfare systems always grow because by definition they buy votes; in democratic systems, wars don't have the same effect (they have the opposite effect, actually)!

Of course, this "welfare vs. warfare" ploy is just a false dichotomy; the vast majority of leftists are in favor of some wars (like World War 2), and the vast majority of rightists are in favor of limited welfare systems (that includes people like Hannity and Limbaugh). That's not to mention the fact that leftists are in favor of more economic restrictions, which causes more poverty, which grows welfare, which buys more votes and causes more poverty poverty, which grows welfare, etc.

 

Ego:

I've tried writing this from a thousand different angles; I'll settle upon this. Why do I support "rampant warfare" over "rampant welfare" when dealing with democratic systems?

There is nothing inherently wrong with warfare and there is nothing inherently wrong with welfare. What is inherently wrong is stealing money from others in order to pay for it.

In a democratic system, the money stolen in order to fund a welfare system goes right into the pockets of millions of potential voters (and gives comfort to those on the edge who now feel safe incase they lose their jobs); this buys more votes and causes more poverty, which causes more people to get on welfare, which buys more votes and causes more poverty, etc. In a democratic system, the money stolen in order to fund a war goes into fewer, richer pockets. Don't even think about counting soldiers; many soldiers don't particularly enjoy losing limbs in wars, so fighting wars does not buy soldiers' votes!

In other words, neither warfare nor welfare are at all immoral; it's just their current method of funding that needs to go. Democratic welfare systems always grow because by definition they buy votes; in democratic systems, wars don't have the same effect (they have the opposite effect, actually)!

Of course, this "welfare vs. warfare" ploy is just a false dichotomy; the vast majority of leftists are in favor of some wars (like World War 2), and the vast majority of rightists are in favor of limited welfare systems (that includes people like Hannity and Limbaugh). That's not to mention the fact that leftists are in favor of more economic restrictions, which causes more poverty, which grows welfare, which buys more votes and causes more poverty poverty, which grows welfare, etc.

 

 

1. I fail to see how money going to fewer, richer pockets is necessarily superior to it going to more, poorer pockets. I see no reason why "the rich" are somehow more deserving of stolen money. I don't see how corporate welfare is superior to poor-laws. In fact, it increases the bad conditions that causes the demand for the poor-laws! Apparently you favor an elitist approach. Furthermore, yes, the warfare state involves a degree of welfarism to soliders and veterans. It is part of the welfare state in a profound sense.

2. The warfare state is equally prone to interventionism. Each intervention sets up the conditions for future interventions, particularly with respect to "blowback". More money is poured into it all the time and it continually grows. We are kept in a state of perpetual war more or less. It's not a minor matter and it most certainly is not something that just dissapears after a single war is fought and over. It also buys votes too - particularly from conservatives and particular industrial groups.

3. I'd suggest that what's wrong with the warfare state is more than a matter of how it is funded. For the vast majority of the wars are unjustified in terms of ethics. They are initiations of aggression that involve mass-murder and it effects many innocent bystanders. Modern state warfare is entirely unjustified from a libertarian ethical perspective, not just because it is funded through taxes and whatnot, but because of the very initiatory and invasive nature of the aggression. So there is something wrong with the functionality itself, which cannot be said of welfare.

Brainpolice:

1. I fail to see how money going to fewer, richer pockets is necessarily superior to it going to more, poorer pockets. I see no reason why "the rich" are somehow more deserving of stolen money. I don't see how corporate welfare is superior to poor-laws. In fact, it increases the bad conditions that causes the demand for the poor-laws! Apparently you favor an elitist approach. Furthermore, yes, the warfare state involves a degree of welfarism to soliders and veterans. It is part of the welfare state in a profound sense.

Stealing money to fill fewer, richer pockets is superior only the sense that it isn't self-perpatuating democratically (it has the opposite effect); both cases are evil, of course.

I don't think we would use the same definition of "elitist". Many leftists define "elitist" as "rich" or "high-class"; for example, they "prove" that Obama can't be elitist by mentioning that he wasn't born particularly wealthy (which isn't really true, anyways). I define "elitist" as "smug", "arrogant", or "self-important". Using my definition, both cases are elitist.

Lastly, like I said before, wars don't buy votes from soldiers, but welfare does buy votes from welfare recipients; in fact, wars end up getting politicians and political parties thrown out of office, while welfare states just move the political spectrum towards the left.

2. The warfare state is equally prone to interventionism. Each intervention sets up the conditions for future interventions, particularly with respect to "blowback". More money is poured into it all the time and it continually grows. We are kept in a state of perpetual war more or less. It's not a minor matter and it most certainly is not something that just dissapears after a single war is fought and over. It also buys votes too - particularly from conservatives and particular industrial groups.

This is a good point; one war often sets up the justification for a second. However, by then, the voters are so tired of having their money stolen and spent overseas that the war-mongers are often thrown out of office.

3. I'd suggest that what's wrong with the warfare state is more than a matter of how it is funded. For the vast majority of the wars are unjustified in terms of ethics. They are initiations of aggression that involve mass-murder and it effects many innocent bystanders. Modern state warfare is entirely unjustified from a libertarian ethical perspective, not just because it is funded through taxes and whatnot, but because of the very initiatory and invasive nature of the aggression. So there is something wrong with the functionality itself, which cannot be said of welfare.

Aside from the fact that leftists also support self-perpetuating tax systems, self-perpetuating labor laws (remember the French riots?), and self-perpetuating price controls, I think you're being a tad too pacifist here.

There are millions of evil, disgusting people who commit horrible crimes every day, often in tandem. The fact that they employ human shields shouldn't give them immunity; it should make the case to take them out even stronger. Wars can be moral.

 

Stealing money to fill fewer, richer pockets is superior only the sense that it isn't self-perpatuating democratically (it has the opposite effect); both cases are evil, of course.

I don't think we would use the same definition of "elitist". Many leftists define "elitist" as "rich" or "high-class"; for example, they "prove" that Obama can't be elitist by mentioning that he wasn't born particularly wealthy (which isn't really true, anyways). I define "elitist" as "smug", "arrogant", or "self-important". Using my definition, both cases are elitist.

Lastly, like I said before, wars don't buy votes from soldiers, but welfare does buy votes from welfare recipients; in fact, wars end up getting politicians and political parties thrown out of office, while welfare states just move the political spectrum towards the left.

By "elitist" I tend to mean "extremely exclusive".

Stop thinking in terms of "left" and "right" and think in terms of political power in general. The warfare state increases political power. If by "to the left" you mean "increase in political power", then the warfare state also just "moves the polilitical spectrum towards the left".

The likelyhood of the democratic process truly kicking the militarist bums out is very slim. We've had a huge anti-war inertia against the Iraq War yet it hasn't managed to stop it at all. The closet we ever came to having a huge and powerful enough anti-war movement to nearly stop a war in its tracks was during Vietnam.

This is a good point; one war often sets up the justification for a second. However, by then, the voters are so tired of having their money stolen and spent overseas that the war-mongers are often thrown out of office.

This is simply untrue though. For one thing, many of the warmongers are not vote-in politicians, they are the military planners and bereaucrats who are appointed and hired through other means. For another thing, democratic processes don't usually significantly change who is in power to the extent of a total turn-around. And even if a particular set of warmongering politicians are thrown out of office, the military-industrial apparatus itself remains, they are often replaced by new warmongers, and the military is merely used elsewhere in another war or operation. Once again, the warfare state is interventionist in nature. It doesn't just stop in its tracks when a given war ends or with a modified congress or new president.

Aside from the fact that leftists also support self-perpetuating tax systems, self-perpetuating labor laws (remember the French riots?), and self-perpetuating price controls, I think you're being a tad too pacifist here.

There are millions of evil, disgusting people who commit horrible crimes every day, often in tandem. The fact that they employ human shields shouldn't give them immunity; it should make the case to take them out even stronger. Wars can be moral.

I'm not a pacifist, I merely apply the non-aggression principle to foreign policy, which naturally yields a very anti-war result due to the invasive and most often initiatory nature of state warfare.

Tell me which American wars you consider to be moral. Because I have trouble finding one or two in the entirely of American history that may count as truly being "defensive" and a "just war".

If you mean to imply that, to use a few examples, the Iraq War and Veitnam War would have been justified if only they were done by "private defense agencies", I disagree. Just because it's a PDA or DRO does not mean that it may suddenly get away with violating the NAP.

Brainpolice:

 

1. I fail to see how money going to fewer, richer pockets is necessarily superior to it going to more, poorer pockets. I see no reason why "the rich" are somehow more deserving of stolen money. I don't see how corporate welfare is superior to poor-laws. In fact, it increases the bad conditions that causes the demand for the poor-laws! Apparently you favor an elitist approach. Furthermore, yes, the warfare state involves a degree of welfarism to soliders and veterans. It is part of the welfare state in a profound sense.

I think it's quite clear what he's saying, and it isn't anything like that.  He's not saying "money going to fewer, richer pockets is necessarily superior to it going to more, poorer pockets"; he's saying both are wrong but that when you cut off the flow into money into those fewer richer pockets you won't get mobs out on the streets burning cars and wreaking havoc as happens when you try to cut off the flow into the more poorer pockets.  Therefore putting an end to the wrong is easier in the former case, and by this metric it's "superior"