Conza88:To "guide" lmao.
How amusing it is, I frequently consult my dictionary for entertainment. Now do you have anything to say thats' worth hearing?
Conza88:All others labels or whatever, 'guide' with COERCION.
I'll give you a clue, that's not guiding.
Conza88:Who is doing the "guiding" in an anarcho-capitalism society?
PDAs, familys, other institutions.
Conza88:Who is using 'guide' in the sense of coercion/force?
Somebody missed the point.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Juan:1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation. 2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision. Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point. Since I could that I do have the right to rule over somebody if I have the right, or authority, to do so. The problem with the current situation just misplaces the right of authority. And the second agrees with my point. I'm not equivocating, just using the correct definitions of words, I hear the communists are quite fond of confusing the meanings of words...
Juan:1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation. 2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point. Since I could that I do have the right to rule over somebody if I have the right, or authority, to do so. The problem with the current situation just misplaces the right of authority.
And the second agrees with my point.
I'm not equivocating, just using the correct definitions of words, I hear the communists are quite fond of confusing the meanings of words...
We are not authoritarians. We are radical libertarians.
We reject authority but we do not reject leadership.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Juan: GilesStratton:Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point. You went to dictionary.com and only retrieved the second definition/meaning, conveniently overlooking the first and more common one. The legitimate point is that libertarianism is not 'voluntary' ruling.
GilesStratton:Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point.
And the two you provided didn't make a difference.
kiba: We are not authoritarian. We are radical libertarians.
We are not authoritarian. We are radical libertarians.
I am? That's news.
kiba:We reject authority but we do not reject leadership.
The two are the same things.
Conza88: "Multiple rulers" - Like who, give an example. You mean business owners right? The boss? He's the ruler?
"Multiple rulers" - Like who, give an example. You mean business owners right? The boss? He's the ruler?
Yeah, our House of Habsburg lover can`t reconcile himself with Franz Joseph being a despicable statist criminal so he must go around pretending ruling does not presume coercion. He is going on about contracting with an institution that takes on some of the roles of the government (sometimes up to defining morality), but the institution is either not territorial (like an insurance company) or is very small (like Branch Dravidians at Waco), but most of all it is voluntary and does not monopolise with force.Of course the head of such an organisation would not be a ruler, but a leader. A ruler is someone whose power ultimately to some degree rests on powers of coercion while a leader is someone whose power rests solely on the powers of opinion. But were he to recognise this simple truth he would have to change his opinion of the nobility and he just can`t do that, for he loves to grovel at their feet.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But it is. We we advocate is no rulers and simply contracting with others to provide certain services. Given the governments have a coercive monopoly on justice, defense, etc, and PDAs do not, I fail to see how there are any rulers.
A ruler is anybody who rules, or guides another. There will be multiple forces doing this.
Does this apply to what "we" advocate:
nirgrahamUK: 1. a state of society without government or law.
1. a state of society without government or law.
No.
nirgrahamUK:2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
nirgrahamUK:3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Yes, although it may to some extent be disputed.
nirgrahamUK: 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
nirgrahamUK:anarchy is a word, like gay previously mentioned. which can mean different things in different contexts. im quite comfortable i and the others here can detect te appropriate context. it will be part of the anarcho-capitalist project to make definition 3 the dominant meaning over the other competing meanings. Such changing of the emphasis of words within a culture is common.
You have 1 in 4 defintions on your side and the origins of the word againsts your side.
Marko:Yeah, our House of Habsburg lover can`t reconcile himself with Franz Joseph being a despicable statist criminal so he must go around pretending ruling does not presume coercion.
Have you even read Hoppe? Or more importantly the original post?
Marko:Of course the head of such an organisation would not be a ruler, but a leader.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/leader
Look what comes up, ruler!
Marko:A ruler is someone whose power ultimately to some degree rests on powers of coercion while a leader is someone whose power rests solely on the powers of opinion.
More nonsense. The dictionary disagrees with you, by the way.
Marko:But were he to recognise this simple truth he would have to change his opinion of the nobility and he just can`t do that, for he loves to grovel at their feet.
Do you have anything to say, that might, you know, be relevant?
I actually don't like the term anarcho-capitalism either but for different reasons. However, the point is perhaps valid if you bring up the Nockean distinction between government and the state. I find myself agreeing with you because of this and think an added benefit would be that people's psychological reaction to "no government" is shock; but to "no monopoly on violence," that's something they're unfamiliar with and might give it a fair listen.
GilesStratton:A ruler is anybody who rules, or guides another.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:But it is. We we advocate is no rulers and simply contracting with others to provide certain services. Given the governments have a coercive monopoly on justice, defense, etc, and PDAs do not, I fail to see how there are any rulers. GilesStratton:A ruler is anybody who rules, or guides another.A mentor guides another, but isn't a ruler. Reconcile.
I don't have to reconcile anything, it's in the OP.
Capitalism is a legal system. Libertarianism is not a legal system, it's a system of interpersonal ethics that functions as the context for a legal system. Anarchism is not a legal system, it is the condition that is consistant with the interpersonal ethics of libertarianism. Within the context of libertarian anarchism, multiple different types of legal systems are possible. But libertarian anarchism itself is not a legal system and hence should not be conflated with a particular model. The term "anarcho-capitalism" only makes sense if you define capitalism in a way that regaurds it as one model contextual to libertarian anarchism. In other words, libertarian anarchism subsumes anarcho-capitalism. On the other hand, if anarcho-capitalism is being concieved in a way that functionally makes it the model for a state or number of states, then it is a contradiction in terms.
Knight_of_BAAWA:A mentor guides another, but isn't a ruler. Reconcile.
GilesStratton:I don't have to reconcile anything
It seems like Giles is using a broad definition of ruler that isn't common among libertarians or non-libertarians alike. A voluntary relationship has no "ruler" in it. A ruler is someone who imposes their will on others against their explicit consent, someone with arbitrary authority. There is nothing voluntary about rulership, they are dichotomous. One's relationship with a ruler is not one which is freely entered or exited, it is imposed prior to consent. A mutually voluntary relationship, on the other hand, is one in which decision-making power is not arbitrary or completely unilaterial. It's at the consent of everyone involved.
GilesStratton: Marko:Yeah, our House of Habsburg lover can`t reconcile himself with Franz Joseph being a despicable statist criminal so he must go around pretending ruling does not presume coercion. Have you even read Hoppe? Or more importantly the original post?
GilesStratton: Marko:Of course the head of such an organisation would not be a ruler, but a leader. http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/leader Look what comes up, ruler! Marko:A ruler is someone whose power ultimately to some degree rests on powers of coercion while a leader is someone whose power rests solely on the powers of opinion. More nonsense. The dictionary disagrees with you, by the way.
I assure you it is a modern thing. Nobody went around calling Louis XIV a leader.
GilesStratton:Do you have anything to say, that might, you know, be relevant?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, you do. A mentor guides another, but is not a ruler. Reconcile.
And, as far as I know I wasn't limiting the discussion to mentors.
GilesStratton:And, as far as I know I wasn't limiting the discussion to mentors.
Using Giles's definition, to help someone is to rule them.
Brainpolice:It seems like Giles is using a broad definition of ruler that isn't common among libertarians or non-libertarians alike. A voluntary relationship has no "ruler" in it.
It seems to be common with the dictionary:
"to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern"
Brainpolice:A ruler is someone who imposes their will on others against their explicit consent, someone with arbitrary authority
The dictionary disagrees. Or are dictionaries to bourgousie for the Mutualists?
Brainpolice:One's relationship with a ruler is not one which is freely entered or exited, it is imposed prior to consent.
Why? If I live on your property you rule over me whilst I exist on that property.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But any who guides is a ruler. A mentor guides. A mentor is not a ruler. Reconcile.
Who says a mentor cannot rule over their student in that sense of the word? Moreover a ruler can be somebody who directs, in which case it is applicable.
Marko:Hoppe? What is he your personal God or something?
No, he just says a lot of things that happen to be very true.
Marko:He argues pre-modern state was less evil than a modern state, he doesn`t actually run around with a CoA of House of Habsburg.
Well I just think it looks quite nice. It also gets a nice reaction out of people who like to throw around the term monarchist.
Marko:So now you found it expedient to gloss over the fact statism skews and corrupts the very way language is being used? Not only you yield to statist propaganda, but you use it for your own ends. Rulers are called leaders by the state and agents of the state. Oddly enough statist schools, statist media and statist intelligentsia find it benefitial to refer to head statesmen as "leaders".
The term "statist" is too easily thrown around on these forums. So what? The state also referred to slaves as property, I guess we better drop those words too?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:It seems like Giles is using a broad definition of ruler that isn't common among libertarians or non-libertarians alike. A voluntary relationship has no "ruler" in it. It seems to be common with the dictionary: "to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern" Brainpolice:A ruler is someone who imposes their will on others against their explicit consent, someone with arbitrary authority The dictionary disagrees. Or are dictionaries to bourgousie for the Mutualists? Brainpolice:One's relationship with a ruler is not one which is freely entered or exited, it is imposed prior to consent. Why? If I live on your property you rule over me whilst I exist on that property.
Nonsense. Property rights does not grant completely arbitrary authority. People do not become your defacto slave as soon as they walk on your lawn. Your conception of property rights appears to legitimize outright psychopathy.
Arbitrarily "excersizing dominating power" over someone is not consistant with libertarianism, it's practically the definition of crime. Individual rights are supposed to protect people from rulership.
As for your poor attempts at taking rhetorical pot-shots, I'm not a mutualist.
GilesStratton:Who says a mentor cannot rule over their student in that sense of the word?
GilesStratton:Moreover a ruler can be somebody who directs, in which case it is applicable.
Your argument is seriously made of fail.
Marko:I assure you it is a modern thing. Nobody went around calling Louis XIV a leader.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it's still not.
What? A mentor doesn't direct? Nonsense.
Knight_of_BAAWA:How is the student being ruled over? You're the one with the onus of proof.
He is being guided, a leader can be defined as one who guides, or directs. It's that simple.
GilesStratton:What? A mentor doesn't direct? Nonsense.
GilesStratton:He is being guided, a leader can be defined as one who guides, or directs.
You realize that I'm just going to hound you with this, don't you? You need to admit your error for that to not happen.
GilesStratton: No, he just says a lot of things that happen to be very true.
He also has called himself an anarcho-capitalist.
GilesStratton:How amusing it is, I frequently consult my dictionary for entertainment. Now do you have anything to say thats' worth hearing?
This wouldn't surprise me. Do you just pick the definitions that conform to the point you are trying to make and ignore the rest, even if more general and used often. I dunno, do you have anything to say that's worth reading?
GilesStratton:I'll give you a clue, that's not guiding.
I'll give you a hint, I know it's not. My point; there is a differentiation between a "ruler", someone who uses the threat of violence to back up their "rules" i.e laws. And someone who "guides" someone voluntarily, without that threat. Or do you not see a difference?
GilesStratton:PDAs, familys, other institutions.
Where is the coercion, force, violence in the relationship? Hire your own PDA, insurance company - you won't be "ruled" over. Free to defend yourself from "rulers" lol. Family - voluntary socialism, the breadwinner provides food, shelter, and other goods. He can withdraw that when he wishes, his/her property - he sets the 'rules'. Nothing stopping the person leaving at any time - and withdrawing from those 'rules'. Ain't the same with a nation or state, homesteading - they don't legitimately own the land. The "you can just leave argument" is fallacious.
Other institutions - you mean business right. Like the Boss? The owner who sets the 'rules'? C'mon now..
GilesStratton:Somebody missed the point.
Indeed. Somebody did.
nirgrahamUK: anarchy - no-involuntary government
anarchy - no-involuntary government
I think this equation is very wrong, & is what furthers ignorance out of spite (in addition to frustration) among anarchists who are not anarcho-capitalist, or at least find problems with the term itself.
You're ignoring the basic origins of the word anarchy itself (quick reference, but googling additional sources obviously helps: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchy), and while uncovering linguistic origins of labels & terms will be the last thing on earth to prevent semantic arguments & word soup from developing, it doesn't help when one is trying to correct the etymology of a word that may longer be viewed as inherently useful (anarcho-capitalism), in an attempt to create a new word to correct confusion associated with the previous.
There is already a word, or at least an attempt at describing "no voluntary government", of which is found in the philosophy of voluntaryism, which is what I find libertarianism is more accuratley rooted with rather than anarchism (by that I mean libertarianism and voluntarysim seem to be more compatible, & in some cases merley use different language to describe similar things, compared to libertarianism & the various flavors of anarchism). I say this despite the possible logical conclusions of a stateless society (wherin State could be defined as involuntary government, or the involuntary system) possible leading to anarchism (which the definition I will use implies no rulers, which despite the okay by many of voluntary rulers,many anarchists still take problem to the concept of rulers themselves), of which the arguments range from the absurd to the convincing. I'd appreciate if left-libertarians would be gentle with me when I say this, as my interest is discussion, not trespassing
Keep in mind however, I'm not inherently seperating libertarianism, anarchism, & voluntaryism, either. They all share very common themes in their logic & reasoning, & perhaps a meta apparoach towards these 3 may yeild a better path at determing a better term to be used when once describes what is usually associated with anarcho-capitalism and/or market-anarchism (the various flavors associated aside, of course).
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
I have to give you this, Giles: at least you came up with a novel version of the anarcho-semantics debate.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
GilesStratton: No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
nirgrahamUK: anarcho-capitalism is an excellent description because it says. anarchy - no-involuntary government capitalism - system of production featuring private property and division of labour
anarcho-capitalism is an excellent description because it says.
capitalism - system of production featuring private property and division of labour
^^^ This.
GilesStratton:No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
GilesStratton: Marko:So now you found it expedient to gloss over the fact statism skews and corrupts the very way language is being used? Not only you yield to statist propaganda, but you use it for your own ends. Rulers are called leaders by the state and agents of the state. Oddly enough statist schools, statist media and statist intelligentsia find it benefitial to refer to head statesmen as "leaders". The term "statist" is too easily thrown around on these forums. So what? The state also referred to slaves as property, I guess we better drop those words too?
Conza88:I dunno, do you have anything to say that's worth reading?
Giles was good for awhile there, but he's really missed the point lately, and that's leading him into conflict with people who aren't his enemies, naturally or intentionally.
As I mentioned recently, GS was a worshiper of Benito Giuliani, desperately craving an opportunity to lick El Duce's boots, while laying naked, sideways on a marble bathroom floor at the White House.
For a brief period of time, GS seemed to have overcome his lust for being dominated by a stronger, and yet infinitely more evil man. But then he found Hoppe. And went from reading Mises AND Rothbard while exploring others, to, Hoppe this, Hoppe that.
Hoppe is pretty good. I haven't found much to disagree with so far. However, I'm not using Hoppe exclusively, and trying to fill in every blank or untouched area by using Hoppe alone, or extending his ideas to answer everything, including the meaning of life itself.
We use a hammer to pound nails, not to stir a soup, and while Hoppe makes a lot of great points, assuming he is the end of knowledge, and everything he has come up with is perfect, ultimately leads to the sort of latent pseudo intellectual sexual masochism on display in this thread.
It's good to take a step back, and make sure we're not obsessed with Proudhon, or Tucker. George or Mises. Rothbard or Hoppe. These are starting, not ending points on the road to a more complete knowledge.
liberty student: Conza88:I dunno, do you have anything to say that's worth reading? Giles was good for awhile there, but he's really missed the point lately, and that's leading him into conflict with people who aren't his enemies, naturally or intentionally. As I mentioned recently, GS was a worshiper of Benito Giuliani, desperately craving an opportunity to lick El Duce's boots, while laying naked, sideways on a marble bathroom floor at the White House. For a brief period of time, GS seemed to have overcome his lust for being dominated by a stronger, and yet infinitely more evil man. But then he found Hoppe. And went from reading Mises AND Rothbard while exploring others, to, Hoppe this, Hoppe that. Hoppe is pretty good. I haven't found much to disagree with so far. However, I'm not using Hoppe exclusively, and trying to fill in every blank or untouched area by using Hoppe alone, or extending his ideas to answer everything, including the meaning of life itself. We use a hammer to pound nails, not to stir a soup, and while Hoppe makes a lot of great points, assuming he is the end of knowledge, and everything he has come up with is perfect, ultimately leads to the sort of latent pseudo intellectual sexual masochism on display in this thread. It's good to take a step back, and make sure we're not obsessed with Proudhon, or Tucker. George or Mises. Rothbard or Hoppe. These are starting, not ending points on the road to a more complete knowledge.
Too bad Lord Brock O'Banna didn't make this speech the other day instead of what he did....
Liberty student... et tu Brutus?
liberty student: GilesStratton:No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
This is actually fairly ironic, since the character displayed (Hue) de-assimilates from the Borg due to lack of contact with the collective.er...I mean, "i lol'ed". *walks away whistling*
Competitive Rulers is Nonsense.
You can't start competing with a ruler if you're not a ruler already. If someone rules you, you don't compete with him, unless you're up for a revolution. Saying otherwise amounts to settling with state to state competition. Or like arguing that from now on no new companies will be formed, is that true competition?
GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. is being gay : happy , or homosexual ? Is this post useless or irrelevant?
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. is being gay : happy , or homosexual ?
GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government
No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
is being gay : happy , or homosexual ?
Is this post useless or irrelevant?
He makes a fair point; words can have more than one meaning - and when it comes to irrelevant or useless posts you post at least as many as anyone else:
GilesStratton: Go away.
Go away.
GilesStratton: When you want to post something relevant, I might listen.
When you want to post something relevant, I might listen.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap