OH DEAR.

JonBostwick:

Do you think everyone who isn't an anarchist is on the right?

Well, that would fit the traditional definition.

Sphairon:

Niccolò,

as an attentive European observer, you may have witnessed the massive German "tax evasion scandal" about 2 months ago.

What happened? People unwilling to put up with giving half their earnings to the state had invested in a tax-exempt Liechtenstein foundation. Unfortunately, a recently fired employee of that foundation stole (as a last service to the company, so to say) intimate customer data and sold them to German intelligence services. So, in order to successfully pursue its criminal aims of stealing peoples' income, the state even engaged in another criminal act: fencing. Not to mention the histrionic way in which those "tax criminals" were presented to the public. Pictures of police task forces arresting the alleged "criminals" were shown on every newspaper for weeks.

 

I have not heard of this story - though I've heard of the LGT - but I'll take your word for it nonetheless. In any case, do you realize what a perfect example of vulgar libertarianism this is?

 

First you're assuming that an institution such as the ones associated with the LGT is an example of a free market/counter-economic resource for agorists (unconscious or not) to seek. The fact is, however, in its social context with something like LGT you have a situation where there are political constraints and pressures causing the situation to move towards a statist agenda. The atmosphere of all the societies around the world is now such that if the organization/group/person is not explicitly anti-state, it moves towards a spectrum of pro-state.

 

Second, the mainstream media is not a tool in the use of those associated with Black Blocs. I don't know why you bring it up, but if it is for the purpose of attempting to make it seem as though the msm is an expression of the people I'm speaking of, then you are sorely mistaken.

Sphairon:

Now, Niccolò, from what you told us about the "inherently agorist" European mentality, one might expect especially those groups which protested against G8 or similar organizations to take sides for the tax evaders.

Did they? No. They cherished.

From those I actually know in Europe whom are active in G8 protests and related demonstrations, I've not heard anything about support for the harassment and imprisonment of tax evaders. Most are friendly to me when I tell them I refuse to pay the largest group of mass murderers in the history of mankind.

Sphairon:

The only ones who actually dared defending the "criminals" were these neoliberal capitalist pigs also known as libertarians. Even self-proclaimed "classical liberals" defended "getting tough on tax evaders".

You think of yourself as a neoliberal then I suppose?

Sphairon:

I personally know some G8 protesters. While I don't want to generalize, it appears to me the vast majority of protesters are as detached from free market economics as North Koreans are from their southern brothers. None of my acquaintances viewed the G8 protests as being against "state corporatism" or "state interventions hurting the little man"; they considered it to be "anti capitalism". The global economy, they say, has gotten "out of control" which needs to be changed. The very implication of an economy being "out of control" and therefore undesirable is as unlibertarian as it gets.

 

I personally know people who participated in the riots at Genoa; I'm even related to one. When my cousin told me why he went up to Genoa from Roma for the demonstrations he was quite clear that he did so to protest the world governments and their murderous sadism.

 

As far as an economy not being able to be out of control, I suppose the Soviet economy was just right then.

Sphairon:

Concerning the "black bloc", Wikipedia states as a first introductory sentence:

A black bloc is an affinity group, or cluster of affinity groups,^[1] that comes together during some sort of protest, demonstration, or other event involving class struggle, anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization.

Class struggle? Anti-capitalism? Come on, Nick. I sure see your enthusiasm regarding such groups. You seem to think "As long as they are against the status quo, they are allies", but they are not. In a battle between one group of statists trying to overthrow another group of statists, where's the role of libertarians?

 

Well, yes... I am an anti-capitalist, because capitalism has always meant a system of government involvement on the behalf of economic interests. I am a class warrior, because the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers. I am an anti-globalizationist, that is if you consider anti-globalization to be the exploitation of the producing class in other countries by the parasitic class in wealthier ones.

 

I am all of these things, but I am especially an Anarchist, and one trained in the tradition of Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Murray N. Rothbard - in his gold days - and of course SEK3.

 

Do you not agree with these interpretations? Well, tough.

 

 

JonBostwick:

Niccolò:

I look at Obama as being drastically on the right, like someone he mirrors - Benito Mussolini.

Do you think everyone who isn't an anarchist is on the right?

 

I believe anyone that isn't an Individualist Anarchist is to the right of that strain of thought, but not everyone could be considered a "rightist," per se.

 

I would define the lines this way.

 

 

*boinks the monarcho-fibbertarians*

I do not understand some standard. Communist and collectivist anarchist are not necessarily better than C and D. Also what makes C better than D? And what is the problem with monarchy?

scineram:

I do not understand some standard. Communist and collectivist anarchist are not necessarily better than C and D. Also what makes C better than D?

I don't think he was saying one was better than the other, he was, however, saying which political/social philosophy was more "left" or "right" than the other. He was visually defining political terms.

Anyways, I really hate the left/right debate. I don't think it helps anyone. Some people whould have that scale reversed citing contemporary american usage as "left" having state socialist connotations. The whole system has lost all semantic meaning.

I define things as simply libertarian and authoritarian/tyrannical. "Left" and "right" libertarian only defines which terms of action are employed by the libertarian.

Anarchism..

It is this disregard for the 'trade of values' that allows liberties to be encroached upon. People place much on the chimera of equality of the human condition. I disagree with the anarcho-communists in this aspect. The only ideal is equilibrium not equality. Equilibrium would allow for the voluntary freeing of both the social and economic sectors. You cannot attain social freedom without freeing the economic sector. Conversely you cannot hope to quell economic growth without also opposing the social sector. The only hope for anarchism is multiple decentralized competing forms of heterotopias. I see it as AnComs, Syndicalists, Agorists, and yes the AnCaps, as existing within proximity (but never forced to live side by side.)

I deplore the division that is created amongst anarchists when ultimately what good is it when the theory has yet to be put to the test? When will it ever be put to the test? When it finally does come to pass in some alien far off future, one party cannot denounce anothers rights to sell themselves into communism or socialism. It would defeat the purpose of anarchism. What I am grateful for is that I've noticed a quelling of anarchist differences. There are outbursts here and there, but ultimately it seems the debate is evolving. One of propertarian defining, as in 'possession' vs 'ownership'. Some could argue they are the same, others are quick to shoot that down.

With that said I identify closely as an Individualist Anarchist. But ultimately I perceive the virtue of selfishness in Market Anarchy exists. To best help yourself you’ll not be able to take advantage of others without detrimental return. Your own self-serving preservation keeps you from encroaching on the rights of others. I just wish it were easier to explain.

scineram:

I do not understand some standard. Communist and collectivist anarchist are not necessarily better than C and D. Also what makes C better than D? And what is the problem with monarchy?

 

I don't believe anyone in this thread has claimed that communist or collectivist or syndicalist anarchists are better. Nor do we necesarily refer to them by the term "left-libertarian" - I consider individualist anarchism and market anarchism to essentially be "left-libertarian". And what isn't the problem with monarchy from the perspective of anarchy (the negation of archy)?

I was referring to Nick's chart. It sure looked like a value scale, left=good, right=bad.

scineram:

I was referring to Nick's chart. It sure looked like a value scale, left=good, right=bad.

I thought it was a comparison of radical vs. conservative; the very end of the left side being the most radical (and more aligned with anarchism), compared to the right side of the chart, which at the very end, is aligned with monarchism & totalitarianism. 

Unless you view totalitarianism and/or monarchism as good, then perhaps yes, it could be inferred as such. 

Otherwise, the dumbing down of the chart as it somehow excuses the statist left (which is more or less what I think you are implying) from being "bad" or "wrong" compared to the statist-right, is silly. 

If anything, from an anarchist point of view, everything right of the furthest side of the left would be "bad", "incorrect", or "wrong".

On another note, I find it interesting, and in hindsight proper, that vulgar libertarians (or compromised libertarians, which sounds more intelligent than the often used, but still proper in context, "vulgar") are put in the center, as vulgar libertarianism does exhibit quite a bit of political manuevering associated with Centrism.

For what it's worth, this chart could be said to be "incomplete", if you were to include post-left anarchists such as Bob Black; by the chart's measure, they would be even more radical then those on the furthest left side.

 

 

Niccolò:

the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers.

I agree with this sentiment, but for the bolded part I prefer the term "rent-seekers".

maxpot46:

Niccolò:

the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers.

I agree with this sentiment, but for the bolded part I prefer the term "rent-seekers".

 

Fair enough.

 

Niccolò:

the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers.

Corporatist works better in my experience. This definition just reinforces the corporatism=capitalism that is prevalent in the States from the Right or Bottom, whatever you want to call them, preaching the free market but practicing anything but.

Anonymous Coward:

 

Niccolò:

the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers.

Corporatist works better in my experience. This definition just reinforces the corporatism=capitalism that is prevalent in the States from the Right or Bottom, whatever you want to call them, preaching the free market but practicing anything but.

Except... I agree with those in the states on that issue - wow... never thought I'd say that. Corporatist is capitalist - always has been and always will be. Though this isn't the thread for that.

Niccolò:

 

 

First you're assuming that an institution such as the ones associated with the LGT is an example of a free market/counter-economic resource for agorists (unconscious or not) to seek. The fact is, however, in its social context with something like LGT you have a situation where there are political constraints and pressures causing the situation to move towards a statist agenda. The atmosphere of all the societies around the world is now such that if the organization/group/person is not explicitly anti-state, it moves towards a spectrum of pro-state.

No doubt that wealth management organizations as intimately connected with states as the LGT are no agorist ventures. I'd like to point out, however, the competitive (and therefore, by tendency, not as oppressive) character of "tax havens" such as Liechtenstein and their peculiar business groups. While not furthering the agorist/anarchist agenda, they represent an intermediate phase between full-blown statism and the agora, a minarchist island amongst collapsing and voracious social democracies which serves as some kind of life boat for peoples' fruits of labor.

Sure there are issues with this view. First and foremost, LGT's offers are mostly unreachable for average Joes and appeal especially to the super-rich. Secondly, these super-rich corporatists have often gathered their wealth by using the state exploitation mechanism. Thirdly, moving capital from one state to another is no systematic change, but just a convenient reallocation of investments, therewith at best one of those abhorrent "reformist" activities.

Still, the general criticism (not just in the MSM, also amongst common people like family and friends I've talked to) didn't turn on the "reformist" attitude of these tax evaders, but rather on their alleged moral misconduct. Paying taxes was considered "one's necessary share", a "contribution to the public good".

So, if people don't even think beyond the supposed need to raise taxes, how can you possibly argue they are "ripe for agorism"?

And yes, maybe it's different in Italy. Dunno, never been there, perhaps I should come visit.

 

 

Niccolò:

From those I actually know in Europe whom are active in G8 protests and related demonstrations, I've not heard anything about support for the harassment and imprisonment of tax evaders. Most are friendly to me when I tell them I refuse to pay the largest group of mass murderers in the history of mankind.

Please note most socialists would agree with your sentiments about the current state of affairs, they do not, however, draw agorist conclusions from that. While opposing the momentary structure of the state as being imperialist, chauvinist etc, they argue for a change of state systems, not for an abolition of the state itself.

That's pretty much the core of our disagreement: While you argue the intention of Europe's anti-system protesters is to abolish the state in power and leave it at that, it appears to me they wish to replace it with a more socialist-oriented framework.

Niccolò:

You think of yourself as a neoliberal then I suppose?

I wanted to point out everything from conservatism to market anarchism tends to be called "neoliberal" these days.

I'd consider myself a friend of liberty and property who has not chosen a specific faction within the libertarian community as of yet. Alternatively, to use an expression I've recently learned, you might call me a "parlor revolutionary".

Niccolò:

I personally know people who participated in the riots at Genoa; I'm even related to one. When my cousin told me why he went up to Genoa from Roma for the demonstrations he was quite clear that he did so to protest the world governments and their murderous sadism.

 

As far as an economy not being able to be out of control, I suppose the Soviet economy was just right then.

Again, you can protest murderous sadists without being against government in general. It's a huge step from opposing bad governments to realizing all governments are inherently immoral.

Talking about the Soviet union, one protester I know was/is more or less a closet stalinist. Others support socialism because they consider it to be the only viable alternative to the current system. One protester told me the world can't do without collectivism. Not so much libertarian harvest to reap there, huh?

Niccolò:

Well, yes... I am an anti-capitalist, because capitalism has always meant a system of government involvement on the behalf of economic interests. I am a class warrior, because the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers. I am an anti-globalizationist, that is if you consider anti-globalization to be the exploitation of the producing class in other countries by the parasitic class in wealthier ones.

That's fine, but your definitions are most certainly not common. Maybe capitalism is largely considered to be corporatism, but by defining yourself as a "class warrior", you inevitably enter the Marxist realm. And associate yourself with those philosophies, whether you wish to do so or not.

 

Niccolò:

Do you not agree with these interpretations? Well, tough.

I agree with your interpretations of parasitism being our main problem, and I don't intend to be a vulgar libertarian who defends corporatism in contrast to real free markets, I do however think you walk on thin ice with your support for "class struggle" and anti-capitalist activities. Not everybody shares your definition of things. You should be careful who you choose to be your ally.