Anarchism vs Libertarianism

[crimzonsol]

I think the main differene between Anarchism and Libertarianism is the rigth to own property. Anarchists do not believe in the right to own property, everything is decide by an agreement between all parties that would be affected. Libertarianism there is a right to own property. I was wondering if any other people could post their views on the Differences between Anarchism and Libertatainism or their views on my opinion about the differences.

[Red Dragon]

Well there are two wings of anarchy collectivist anarchy and individualist anarchy. The collectivist side you are familiar with, the individualist side compromises mainly of anarcho mutualism, anarcho capitalism, and anarcho agorism. All these could also fit under the term market anarchism, Stefan Molyneux an anarcho-capitalist philosopher, author, actor and host of Freedomain Radio describes it as "a broad term referring to the theory that voluntary free market relationships can – and should – replace all existing coercive state authority". I will now describe the three in more detail. Mutualism is based on the labor theory of value; they oppose the idea individuals receiving an income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe these individuals are not laboring. They hold that if state intervention ceased, these types of incomes would disappear. Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation. Though on capital goods they sometimes disagree on whether they are private "possession" (i.e. individuals required to be using them in order to retain titles) or private property. In other words they support private ownership of goods but only possession of land.

Anarcho capitalist such as myself advocate the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation; the complete deregulation of intrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market. In other words we support private ownership of capital, goods, and land. Though we also recognize charity, non-state common property, and other voluntary communal arrangements can exist in an anarcho capitalist society. We believe that the free market is the basis for a free society, and that the state skews market incentives and disincentives and thus we reject the state as the aggressive entity that it is.

Agorists are essentially for the most part anarcho capitalists though they do identify as left libertarian, though the latter is non-standard usage - by "left" they mean revolutionary rather than socialist. They ever advocate or participate in peaceful black and gray markets. They believe that the underground economy or "black market" will one day be able to undermine the states moral authority as well as its outright power. And when this is done market anarchist will be able to rise up and suppress the state as a criminal activity (with taxation being treated as theft, war being treated as mass murder, et cetera).

So you were right in considering that there is a division in the anarchist family considering the adoption of the free market by some of it's members. Although I'm not exactly sure where green anarchism would fit, thought I'd have to say they might have some objections to the free market due to its effect on the environment.

[crimzonsol]

Red Dragon, What would you consider the fundametals of Anarchism, the basis for all of these other beliefs.

[Red Dragon]

Of course the application of collectivist anarchist ideals to society requires an authoritarian body of some sort that will implement the collectivist ideology. After all we all know that human beings are motivated primarily by the fulfillment of their own needs and wants (one of the many things all anarchists agree on). Thus, in order to prevent people from accumulating private capital, which could result in further fulfillment of human desires, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort, which would have the authority to, in essence, exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. This body would thus inherently possess political power and would be nothing short of a state. I wonder how can they claim to be without archons, without rulers, yet support a body which would govern and control the land, capital, and goods of a certain area and people? The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is precisely the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcement mechanism which would be necessary under an 'egalitarian'-anarchist system. In truth the free market is the only true anarchic form of economics. It encompasses the notion that men should exchange goods and services, without regulation, solely on the basis of value for value. It recognizes charity and communal enterprises as voluntary versions of this same ethic. Such a system would be straight barter, except for the widely felt need for a division of labor in which men, voluntarily, accept value tokens such as cash and credit. Economically, this system is anarchy in it's purest form, and proudly so. But of course we should be more concerned with the abolition of the state first before we implement any such anarchist economies into place.

[davo]

I'm not too familiar with Anarchism but what I've come to understand is Anarchy means no government at all.

Libertarianism is permissive of government function to the minimal extent required to maintain the peace, enforce laws, and protect the people. Anarchists believe there should be no government whatsoever.

To me Anarchism doesn't work at all, as the absence of government means the most powerful will simply replace it with another government.

[Pogo]

Of course the application of collectivist anarchist ideals to society requires an authoritarian body of some sort that will implement the collectivist ideology. After all we all know that human beings are motivated primarily by the fulfillment of their own needs and wants (one of the many things all anarchists agree on). Thus, in order to prevent people from accumulating private capital, which could result in further fulfillment of human desires, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort, which would have the authority to, in essence, exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. This body would thus inherently possess political power and would be nothing short of a state. I wonder how can they claim to be without archons, without rulers, yet support a body which would govern and control the land, capital, and goods of a certain area and people?
I have to disagree with your assertion re the necessity for a state. An obvious alternative to your redistributive organization would be to set a cap on the amount of wealth that could be accumulated and any who were uncomfortable with it would be free to move to a society more to their liking.

If the people of a hypothetical anarchist community have a modicum of enlightenment, they aren't likely to disagree with a reasonable cap, the purpose of which isn't to prevent fulfillment of human desires, but to forestall tyranny.



The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is precisely the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcement mechanism which would be necessary under an 'egalitarian'-anarchist system. In truth the free market is the only true anarchic form of economics. It encompasses the notion that men should exchange goods and services, without regulation, solely on the basis of value for value. It recognizes charity and communal enterprises as voluntary versions of this same ethic. Such a system would be straight barter, except for the widely felt need for a division of labor in which men, voluntarily, accept value tokens such as cash and credit. Economically, this system is anarchy in it's purest form, and proudly so. But of course we should be more concerned with the abolition of the state first before we implement any such anarchist economies into place.

If there was a cap on accumulated wealth then markets would have a relative degree of freeness but in the absence thereof, they would be dominated by the powerful.

In your understanding of anarcho-capitalism, who would set the division of labor?

[Red Dragon]

Of course the application of collectivist anarchist ideals to society requires an authoritarian body of some sort that will implement the collectivist ideology. After all we all know that human beings are motivated primarily by the fulfillment of their own needs and wants (one of the many things all anarchists agree on). Thus, in order to prevent people from accumulating private capital, which could result in further fulfillment of human desires, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort, which would have the authority to, in essence, exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. This body would thus inherently possess political power and would be nothing short of a state. I wonder how can they claim to be without archons, without rulers, yet support a body which would govern and control the land, capital, and goods of a certain area and people?
I have to disagree with your assertion re the necessity for a state. An obvious alternative to your redistributive organization would be to set a cap on the amount of wealth that could be accumulated and any who were uncomfortable with it would be free to move to a society more to their liking.

If the people of a hypothetical anarchist community have a modicum of enlightenment, they aren't likely to disagree with a reasonable cap, the purpose of which isn't to prevent fulfillment of human desires, but to forestall tyranny. And who would choose this cap? Who would they enforce it? If it is chossen democraticaly by the people of the community then it would be a democratic system or a larger majority using coercive force aginst a minority, if it is chossen by the leader of the community then it is still tryanny. Though of course if this individual wwas renting his home or bought his home under said condition then they would have the right to dicriminate against just as others would have the right to discriminate against those who got a STd or had sex change, ect. Now why this wouldn't be a state it would discrimnatory and the community would proably be unpopular since most humans do like to live in places where they have to have a certain ammount of income to live there.



The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is precisely the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcement mechanism which would be necessary under an 'egalitarian'-anarchist system. In truth the free market is the only true anarchic form of economics. It encompasses the notion that men should exchange goods and services, without regulation, solely on the basis of value for value. It recognizes charity and communal enterprises as voluntary versions of this same ethic. Such a system would be straight barter, except for the widely felt need for a division of labor in which men, voluntarily, accept value tokens such as cash and credit. Economically, this system is anarchy in it's purest form, and proudly so. But of course we should be more concerned with the abolition of the state first before we implement any such anarchist economies into place.



If there was a cap on accumulated wealth then markets would have a relative degree of freeness but in the absence thereof, they would be dominated by the powerful. One could also argue that you have a relative degree of freedom under a dictatorship and that in the absense thereof they would be ruled by the powerfull for the sake of social order.


In your understanding of anarcho-capitalism, who would set the division of labor?
The division of labor would be entirely voluntary so in a sense no one. There would be no government to set standards, and services or products would only be bought if the consumers, and the worker would only work for the employer if he felt he was being compensated justly. The employer would also only hire the worker if he felt that said worker would use his labor in making a product of service in trade for another type of product or some type of wealth. It would be a combination of informal contracts between the consumer, the employer, and the worker, along with the basicnatural laws of econmics such as supply and demand, Say’s Law of Markets, ect.

[Pogo]

I have to disagree with your assertion re the necessity for a state. An obvious alternative to your redistributive organization would be to set a cap on the amount of wealth that could be accumulated and any who were uncomfortable with it would be free to move to a society more to their liking.

If the people of a hypothetical anarchist community have a modicum of enlightenment, they aren't likely to disagree with a reasonable cap, the purpose of which isn't to prevent fulfillment of human desires, but to forestall tyranny.


And who would choose this cap? Who would they enforce it? If it is chossen democraticaly by the people of the community then it would be a democratic system or a larger majority using coercive force aginst a minority, if it is chossen by the leader of the community then it is still tryanny. Though of course if this individual wwas renting his home or bought his home under said condition then they would have the right to dicriminate against just as others would have the right to discriminate against those who got a STd or had sex change, ect. Now why this wouldn't be a state it would discrimnatory and the community would proably be unpopular since most humans do like to live in places where they have to have a certain ammount of income to live there.


First off, let me say that anarchy is highly theoretical, requiring a mindset that is at this point in time not prevalent, so it shall almost certainly remain theoretical for the forseeable future; however, I can envision a time at which point it could become practical, the question being whether or not our species will survive long enough to see it. The odds of that happening don't seem to me to be very favorable but that could change quite rapidly due to circumstances beyond our control. It's quite possible that the institutions which foment wholesale ignorance will be destroyed, and if we can somehow manage to survive that destruction, we'll have the opportunity to rebuild human society in a manner that truly befits human beings. Such is my hope, anyway.

Now, to answer your questions, a cap could be chosen by some variant of consensus, and if enforcement were to become necessary, it could be done on an ad hoc basis, rather than establishing a permanent enforcement agency.

Such a society would essentially be an honor system, a society in which virtue took precedence over self-gratification, so there would be no preoccupation with having wealth beyond one's needs.

Why would such a mindset come about? Because virtue is the only way that a person can obtain freedom, whereas obsessive self-interest leads only to enslavement, such as the myriad forms of addiction and neurosis that cause people to behave counterintuitively, quite often to the point of self-destructiveness.





If there was a cap on accumulated wealth then markets would have a relative degree of freeness but in the absence thereof, they would be dominated by the powerful.


One could also argue that you have a relative degree of freedom under a dictatorship and that in the absense thereof they would be ruled by the powerfull for the sake of social order.

Is a cap really analogous to dictatorship?

I would say no, because if a cap is voluntarily accepted then there is no arbitrariness.




In your understanding of anarcho-capitalism, who would set the division of labor?


The division of labor would be entirely voluntary so in a sense no one. There would be no government to set standards, and services or products would only be bought if the consumers, and the worker would only work for the employer if he felt he was being compensated justly. The employer would also only hire the worker if he felt that said worker would use his labor in making a product of service in trade for another type of product or some type of wealth. It would be a combination of informal contracts between the consumer, the employer, and the worker, along with the basicnatural laws of econmics such as supply and demand, Say’s Law of Markets, ect.


Then it seems to me that there really wouldn't be a formal division of labor.

Now, in your system which has no cap, how would those who accumulate wealth defend it? Wouldn't they need to maintain a formal legal system with enforcement mechanisms?

[Red Dragon]

I have to disagree with your assertion re the necessity for a state. An obvious alternative to your redistributive organization would be to set a cap on the amount of wealth that could be accumulated and any who were uncomfortable with it would be free to move to a society more to their liking.

If the people of a hypothetical anarchist community have a modicum of enlightenment, they aren't likely to disagree with a reasonable cap, the purpose of which isn't to prevent fulfillment of human desires, but to forestall tyranny.


And who would choose this cap? Who would they enforce it? If it is chossen democraticaly by the people of the community then it would be a democratic system or a larger majority using coercive force aginst a minority, if it is chossen by the leader of the community then it is still tryanny. Though of course if this individual wwas renting his home or bought his home under said condition then they would have the right to dicriminate against just as others would have the right to discriminate against those who got a STd or had sex change, ect. Now why this wouldn't be a state it would discrimnatory and the community would proably be unpopular since most humans do like to live in places where they have to have a certain ammount of income to live there.


First off, let me say that anarchy is highly theoretical, requiring a mindset that is at this point in time not prevalent, so it shall almost certainly remain theoretical for the forseeable future; however, I can envision a time at which point it could become practical, the question being whether or not our species will survive long enough to see it. The odds of that happening don't seem to me to be very favorable but that could change quite rapidly due to circumstances beyond our control. It's quite possible that the institutions which foment wholesale ignorance will be destroyed, and if we can somehow manage to survive that destruction, we'll have the opportunity to rebuild human society in a manner that truly befits human beings. Such is my hope, anyway. It is a shame that the state does continue to exsist and supress unpopular minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and economic heights. Alongwith creating a ruling class that lives off the labour of the rich, the poor, the middle class, and everyone in between. And then it sitll has the audcaity to use its ill gotten gains to to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence. But I'm ranting here, to me it seem's that the way to remove the state would not be to vote it to death, or burn it to death, or even reason with it to death, but rather to starve it to death.


Now, to answer your questions, a cap could be chosen by some variant of consensus, and if enforcement were to become necessary, it could be done on an ad hoc basis, rather than establishing a permanent enforcement agency. So it would be entirley situational, can you please explain on that more.


Such a society would essentially be an honor system, a society in which virtue took precedence over self-gratification, so there would be no preoccupation with having wealth beyond one's needs. People will always do what they feel is best for them it is our natural instinct. Also I may be jumping the gun here but I'm going to assume that indivdual would decide what it's needs are. To do otherwise would be to invite tyranny, for who can better determine a indivdual's needs than the individual themself? But what if I decide I need my own fleet of F-22 Raptors. You may object that this a luxury and not a need, but this begs the question what is a need? To millions of people in the world today food is a luxury. To the me central heating is a luxury, while to those in Artic regions of the world it's a necessity. The Nazi concentration camps painfully demonstrated just how little man actually needs. Though I doubt any person would use that kind of criteria for determining need. So what would you do with a person who has a irrational or extravagent needs?


Why would such a mindset come about? Because virtue is the only way that a person can obtain freedom, whereas obsessive self-interest leads only to enslavement, such as the myriad forms of addiction and neurosis that cause people to behave counterintuitively, quite often to the point of self-destructiveness. I object self intrest is the driving factor of human nature, eating, drinking, sleeping, participating in activites that bring them that emotion we know as joy. All are based on the fullfillment of an indivduals self desires, there are no selfless deeds or actions. Humans only act when they wish to fufill a desire whether it be physical, emotional, sexual, ect.





If there was a cap on accumulated wealth then markets would have a relative degree of freeness but in the absence thereof, they would be dominated by the powerful.


One could also argue that you have a relative degree of freedom under a dictatorship and that in the absense thereof they would be ruled by the powerfull for the sake of social order.

Is a cap really analogous to dictatorship?

I would say no, because if a cap is voluntarily accepted then there is no arbitrariness. I doubt people would willing but a cap on how much wealth they can acquire, though they may give away a majoirty of their wealth away to charities to fullfill their emotional, spirtual, or moral intrests. Something that will happen alot more once the state is done away with.




In your understanding of anarcho-capitalism, who would set the division of labor?


The division of labor would be entirely voluntary so in a sense no one. There would be no government to set standards, and services or products would only be bought if the consumers, and the worker would only work for the employer if he felt he was being compensated justly. The employer would also only hire the worker if he felt that said worker would use his labor in making a product of service in trade for another type of product or some type of wealth. It would be a combination of informal contracts between the consumer, the employer, and the worker, along with the basicnatural laws of econmics such as supply and demand, Say’s Law of Markets, ect.


Then it seems to me that there really wouldn't be a formal division of labor.

Now, in your system which has no cap, how would those who accumulate wealth defend it? Wouldn't they need to maintain a formal legal system with enforcement mechanisms?
[/quote] A agrrement may be made between two or more indivduals in which one or more of the indivduals will protect one or more indivduals who have agreed to the agreement. The defending indivdual(s) may recieve material compensation from the indivdual(s). Though the defender(s) could also be fullfilling some kind of nonmaterial self desire and would not request material compensation. Or the indivdual could defend his own property with weapons or traps that he would ever build, buy, receive as a gift, inherit, ect. Also the indivduals or an area may defend the another indivduals property because the agresor is has harmed them, their freinds or family, their property, ect. Or because they feel threatend by this agressor, and fear he may start agressions with them. In an anarcho capitalist society all of these are a workable possibilty and any of these agreements would be volintary, unlike the state's protection monoply people would not be limited on how they want to defend their property, unless of course it violates another property of liberty. things like a slave army or going around shooting everyone who gives you a strange look, would be frowned upon and people would have the right to abolish such practices.

Also sorry it took me so long, I've been up to my shoulders in notes studing for my tests.

[firefox]

Pogo, you have some interesting points. Very thoughtful! My only question for you about minarchism is... we know government grows, so why plant a seed? If you really believe that man is "inherently bad", why not just go all the way just for the hell of it. After all, both scenarios would end with the same result, right?

In other news, I consider myself an agorist, based on the definition put forward in this thread. If you or your friends have any good black markets let me know! 8-) In all seriousness, though, I think this is a good avenue for change to take, because it is effective. My reasons are as follows:

1. Government relies on money (that's why it bothers to inflate, bribe local jurisdictions, etc). They can initiate force, of course, but it must be used sparingly to avoid loosing legitimacy. The sheathed sword works better than the unsheathed sword for this reason, and simply because why waste time/energy beating the crap out of someone when you can just scare them into submission instead? That said, think about what government does most of the time. It usually operates by making people feel financially dependent, and thus loyal, at least on paper. This is why state run medicine is so dangerous- it's a strong psychological "ownership" of your and my body. Statists are paternalistic, and want people like you to feel weak, dependent, and obedient for fear of loss, which is arguably one of the top persuasive tactics to humans.

2. The political system is rigged, as we know, and is becoming rigged more and more every election cycle. I encourage everyone to vote, support the LP, etc etc, but I would encourage "well rounded" activists who also participate in civil disobedience and self-sufficient, potentially underground markets. IMHO, the only way to attain freedom is to first attain financial independence. To use the government med example again, the state can't scare you into submittance to some new law by threatening to cancel your heart treatment if you can go elsewhere.

3. It's fun and profitable! As long as you're not initiating force, anything is game, and I think you have a moral duty to subvert the state by not submitting to their rules and by avoiding funding them as much as humanly possible. If I can do it, why can't you? BTW, Dragon, are you the guy from Red Dragon 365?

[Red Dragon]

Who? Can you tell me what your talking about, because I've never heard of something called Red Dragon 365.

[Malte]

The chief difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism is views on the State, one needs only look at the basis of the ideologies to identify that. Libertarianism advocates minimizing State interference and Anarchism abolishes that State altogether, in favor of another system of social organization. It depends on the school of Anarchism to determine what that social organization is. Anarcho-Communism advocates the abolition of the State in favor of an economic commons' and mutual aid in which people are free to satisfy their needs based on a Socialist gift economy. Anarcho-Syndicalism is economically similar to Anarcho-Communism, but organized by Democratic Labour Union's and at times Workers' Councils, emphasizing Workers' self management. Then there is Individualist Anarchism, in which private property is preserved along with, at times, the free market, but a destruction of the State and special emphasis on individual liberty. Libertarianism would be regarded as Right Wing by both sides of the political spectrum, as it is Free Marketeer, Capitalist, and preserves the State, though emphasizing individual liberty. Individualist Anarchism is basically radical Libertarianism, though. There are a few more schools of Anarchist thought, but the same distinction of State remains between the two. The only similarity is putting the State on the back-burner.

[firefox]

Malte, do you think syndicalism can gain popularity in a post-industrial economy? I don't pretend to know either way, but so far the de facto application has been artisan and heavy industry type professions.

[genraidar]

Not sure if this was touched on but anarchism and libertarianism can be the same thing. Anarchocapitalism.

[Pogo]

It is a shame that the state does continue to exsist and supress unpopular minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and economic heights. Alongwith creating a ruling class that lives off the labour of the rich, the poor, the middle class, and everyone in between. And then it sitll has the audcaity to use its ill gotten gains to to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence. But I'm ranting here, to me it seem's that the way to remove the state would not be to vote it to death, or burn it to death, or even reason with it to death, but rather to starve it to death.

I agree, a taxpayer revolt would be an ideal way to kill it, but I think it's more likely that it will die due to an inability to adapt to change.





Now, to answer your questions, a cap could be chosen by some variant of consensus, and if enforcement were to become necessary, it could be done on an ad hoc basis, rather than establishing a permanent enforcement agency.

So it would be entirley situational, can you please explain on that more.
I'm assuming that the people of this hypothetical community would be likeminded and capable of reaching agreement on important issues, and a cap would be one of the fundamental elements of it's foundation, as self-restraint is the only way that I'm aware of that a stateless society could exist and function. Without ethics, men are just clever animals, no?





Such a society would essentially be an honor system, a society in which virtue took precedence over self-gratification, so there would be no preoccupation with having wealth beyond one's needs. People will always do what they feel is best for them it is our natural instinct. Also I may be jumping the gun here but I'm going to assume that indivdual would decide what it's needs are. To do otherwise would be to invite tyranny, for who can better determine a indivdual's needs than the individual themself? But what if I decide I need my own fleet of F-22 Raptors. You may object that this a luxury and not a need, but this begs the question what is a need? To millions of people in the world today food is a luxury. To the me central heating is a luxury, while to those in Artic regions of the world it's a necessity. The Nazi concentration camps painfully demonstrated just how little man actually needs. Though I doubt any person would use that kind of criteria for determining need. So what would you do with a person who has a irrational or extravagent needs?
But isn't it possible that people could come to the realization that agreeing to excercise self-restraint would be in their own best interests? How else can we escape the necessity of having regulations and their consequent enforcement entities?

Re irrational/extravagant needs, I'm assuming the people in my hypothetical community are honest and free of neuroses.





Why would such a mindset come about? Because virtue is the only way that a person can obtain freedom, whereas obsessive self-interest leads only to enslavement, such as the myriad forms of addiction and neurosis that cause people to behave counterintuitively, quite often to the point of self-destructiveness. I object self intrest is the driving factor of human nature, eating, drinking, sleeping, participating in activites that bring them that emotion we know as joy. All are based on the fullfillment of an indivduals self desires, there are no selfless deeds or actions. Humans only act when they wish to fufill a desire whether it be physical, emotional, sexual, ect.
In my experience, there comes a time in one's human development where there is a thirst for absolute freedom, which can only be obtained by reining in one's desires and developing self-mastery. You see, there are degrees of unselfishness, and in it's earliest manifestation, one sets out to achieve it because it is understood to lead to that which is desired, being absolute freedom, so early unselfishness is motivated by personal desire to obtain liberation, but as it progresses, sensuality becomes increasingly irrelevant, hence the freedom from the desire to accumulate.

This is the sort of person I can invision living in an anarchist society, in which all-around human development is paramount.





Is a cap really analogous to dictatorship?

I would say no, because if a cap is voluntarily accepted then there is no arbitrariness. I doubt people would willing but a cap on how much wealth they can acquire, though they may give away a majoirty of their wealth away to charities to fullfill their emotional, spirtual, or moral intrests. Something that will happen alot more once the state is done away with.
I think I addressed this above.





Then it seems to me that there really wouldn't be a formal division of labor.

Now, in your system which has no cap, how would those who accumulate wealth defend it? Wouldn't they need to maintain a formal legal system with enforcement mechanisms?
A agrrement may be made between two or more indivduals in which one or more of the indivduals will protect one or more indivduals who have agreed to the agreement. The defending indivdual(s) may recieve material compensation from the indivdual(s). Though the defender(s) could also be fullfilling some kind of nonmaterial self desire and would not request material compensation. Or the indivdual could defend his own property with weapons or traps that he would ever build, buy, receive as a gift, inherit, ect. Also the indivduals or an area may defend the another indivduals property because the agresor is has harmed them, their freinds or family, their property, ect. Or because they feel threatend by this agressor, and fear he may start agressions with them. In an anarcho capitalist society all of these are a workable possibilty and any of these agreements would be volintary, unlike the state's protection monoply people would not be limited on how they want to defend their property, unless of course it violates another property of liberty. things like a slave army or going around shooting everyone who gives you a strange look, would be frowned upon and people would have the right to abolish such practices.

Also sorry it took me so long, I've been up to my shoulders in notes studing for my tests.

No hurry and sorry for my own delay. I took a trip and forgot about this thread until today.

Re your above example, I would say that accumulation will invariably lead to expansionism which will necessitate all sorts of nastiness, not least, war, so even though you might eliminate the state, the evils that you'd hoped to escape would soon return. In the absence of the sort of people I described above, I think that there would be all manner of petty and serious squabbles that would need to be adjudicated and this would require some sort of a state, no?[hr]
Pogo, you have some interesting points. Very thoughtful! My only question for you about minarchism is... we know government grows, so why plant a seed? If you really believe that man is "inherently bad", why not just go all the way just for the hell of it. After all, both scenarios would end with the same result, right?

Sorry for the delay. I took a trip and forgot to check this thread.

I wouldn't say that man is inherently bad, but rather, that it is far easier to be bad than it is to be good.

Could you elaborate on what you're referring to by "go all the way..."?


Cheers

[1Samuel8]

Not sure if this was touched on but anarchism and libertarianism can be the same thing. Anarchocapitalism. Agreed.
In fact, the two words are actually synonymous if they are used in a logically consistent manner.

The only true anarchism is market anarchism or individualist anarchism and its variations which respect the right to own property.
The collectivist "anarchists" are not true anarchists. They are confused communists. Period.


---


Anarchism is a mutual respect for freedom. The central feature of anarchism is the Non-Aggression Principle (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) and anarchists fail to stress it every time: Nobody has the right to force ANYBODY to do ANYTHING except in self-defense.

Furthermore, every single individual needs to harness individual control of physical matter or property to survive. The right to private property is natural.

This is what the confused socialists and communists who pretend to be anarchists never understand: every single individual is different.
Individuals differ in what they want to do and what they are able to do and what they need in life. Therefore, all forms of "collectivism" is just forcing people to conform. It is not freedom.

[crimzonsol]

In fact, the two words are actually synonymous if they are used in a logically consistent manner.

Not true, Anarchism is the philosophy the rejects any type of coersion, some anarchist view the market economy as a form of coersion.

Also ther are different types of social Anarchism which revolve around social contracts and such, but they have very little care about economic policies, saying that one should be free to do as one wishes.

[tony mitra]

I like what Noam Chomsky has to say. Some people call him anarchist. He calls himself more a social libertarian.
Whatever.
:)

[Red Dragon]

It is a shame that the state does continue to exsist and supress unpopular minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and economic heights. Alongwith creating a ruling class that lives off the labour of the rich, the poor, the middle class, and everyone in between. And then it sitll has the audcaity to use its ill gotten gains to to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence. But I'm ranting here, to me it seem's that the way to remove the state would not be to vote it to death, or burn it to death, or even reason with it to death, but rather to starve it to death.

I agree, a taxpayer revolt would be an ideal way to kill it, but I think it's more likely that it will die due to an inability to adapt to change. To each their own I suppose.





Now, to answer your questions, a cap could be chosen by some variant of consensus, and if enforcement were to become necessary, it could be done on an ad hoc basis, rather than establishing a permanent enforcement agency.

So it would be entirley situational, can you please explain on that more.
I'm assuming that the people of this hypothetical community would be likeminded and capable of reaching agreement on important issues, and a cap would be one of the fundamental elements of it's foundation, as self-restraint is the only way that I'm aware of that a stateless society could exist and function. Without ethics, men are just clever animals, no? This sounds somewhat utopian to me, why would people restrain themselves from aquring wealth from the volintary actions of them and others?





Such a society would essentially be an honor system, a society in which virtue took precedence over self-gratification, so there would be no preoccupation with having wealth beyond one's needs. People will always do what they feel is best for them it is our natural instinct. Also I may be jumping the gun here but I'm going to assume that indivdual would decide what it's needs are. To do otherwise would be to invite tyranny, for who can better determine a indivdual's needs than the individual themself? But what if I decide I need my own fleet of F-22 Raptors. You may object that this a luxury and not a need, but this begs the question what is a need? To millions of people in the world today food is a luxury. To the me central heating is a luxury, while to those in Artic regions of the world it's a necessity. The Nazi concentration camps painfully demonstrated just how little man actually needs. Though I doubt any person would use that kind of criteria for determining need. So what would you do with a person who has a irrational or extravagent needs?
But isn't it possible that people could come to the realization that agreeing to excercise self-restraint would be in their own best interests? How else can we escape the necessity of having regulations and their consequent enforcement entities? Why should people restrain themselves from wealth they accumlate from volintary activites?


Re irrational/extravagant needs, I'm assuming the people in my hypothetical community are honest and free of neuroses. This is a utopian argument if I ever heard, but aside from this what if the extravgent needs are beyond their control, such as medical needs. An example might be if a person contracts some sort of viruse that cost much of the communities wealth to combat, lets say twenty percent of the total wealth of the community.





Why would such a mindset come about? Because virtue is the only way that a person can obtain freedom, whereas obsessive self-interest leads only to enslavement, such as the myriad forms of addiction and neurosis that cause people to behave counterintuitively, quite often to the point of self-destructiveness. I object self intrest is the driving factor of human nature, eating, drinking, sleeping, participating in activites that bring them that emotion we know as joy. All are based on the fullfillment of an indivduals self desires, there are no selfless deeds or actions. Humans only act when they wish to fufill a desire whether it be physical, emotional, sexual, ect.
In my experience, there comes a time in one's human development where there is a thirst for absolute freedom, which can only be obtained by reining in one's desires and developing self-mastery. You see, there are degrees of unselfishness, and in it's earliest manifestation, one sets out to achieve it because it is understood to lead to that which is desired, being absolute freedom, so early unselfishness is motivated by personal desire to obtain liberation, but as it progresses, sensuality becomes increasingly irrelevant, hence the freedom from the desire to accumulate.

This is the sort of person I can invision living in an anarchist society, in which all-around human development is paramount.





Is a cap really analogous to dictatorship?

I would say no, because if a cap is voluntarily accepted then there is no arbitrariness. I doubt people would willing but a cap on how much wealth they can acquire, though they may give away a majoirty of their wealth away to charities to fullfill their emotional, spirtual, or moral intrests. Something that will happen alot more once the state is done away with.
I think I addressed this above.





Then it seems to me that there really wouldn't be a formal division of labor.

Now, in your system which has no cap, how would those who accumulate wealth defend it? Wouldn't they need to maintain a formal legal system with enforcement mechanisms?
A agrrement may be made between two or more indivduals in which one or more of the indivduals will protect one or more indivduals who have agreed to the agreement. The defending indivdual(s) may recieve material compensation from the indivdual(s). Though the defender(s) could also be fullfilling some kind of nonmaterial self desire and would not request material compensation. Or the indivdual could defend his own property with weapons or traps that he would ever build, buy, receive as a gift, inherit, ect. Also the indivduals or an area may defend the another indivduals property because the agresor is has harmed them, their freinds or family, their property, ect. Or because they feel threatend by this agressor, and fear he may start agressions with them. In an anarcho capitalist society all of these are a workable possibilty and any of these agreements would be volintary, unlike the state's protection monoply people would not be limited on how they want to defend their property, unless of course it violates another property of liberty. things like a slave army or going around shooting everyone who gives you a strange look, would be frowned upon and people would have the right to abolish such practices.

Also sorry it took me so long, I've been up to my shoulders in notes studing for my tests.

No hurry and sorry for my own delay. I took a trip and forgot about this thread until today.

Re your above example, I would say that accumulation will invariably lead to expansionism which will necessitate all sorts of nastiness, not least, war, so even though you might eliminate the state, the evils that you'd hoped to escape would soon return. I object as long as any expansion of wealth is voluntary then it will not lead to any of those said things. Also lets face war is expensive and because all wealth accumalted would come from voluntary trade between different indivduals, unlike taxation and other state theft, and thus the funds for waging war would be rather hard to come by. Not to mention any people who wage an agressive war would proably be seen with disdain as there is very little profit to be made in non-state warfare.

In the absence of the sort of people I described above, I think that there would be all manner of petty and serious squabbles that would need to be adjudicated and this would require some sort of a state, no? I object no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Also this is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately. Not to mention this is a circular and contradicting argument, in which it implicitly advocates a monopoly on force to stop a monopoly on force from arising.

[firefox]

In fact, the two words are actually synonymous if they are used in a logically consistent manner.

Not true, Anarchism is the philosophy the rejects any type of coersion, some anarchist view the market economy as a form of coersion.

Also ther are different types of social Anarchism which revolve around social contracts and such, but they have very little care about economic policies, saying that one should be free to do as one wishes.


I think we are in agreement, crim. "The market" is just a situation where people can interact on a voluntary basis. We are using different terminology to describe the same thing.

[crimzonsol]

We are using different terminology to describe the same thing.

I think we need to create a common terminology of completly new words for the description of Anarchism. Seriously, I hate it when you are both saying the same thing, but are using different words that lead to conflict. It happens way too often in the english language.

[Pogo]

I'm assuming that the people of this hypothetical community would be likeminded and capable of reaching agreement on important issues, and a cap would be one of the fundamental elements of it's foundation, as self-restraint is the only way that I'm aware of that a stateless society could exist and function. Without ethics, men are just clever animals, no? This sounds somewhat utopian to me, why would people restrain themselves from aquring wealth from the volintary actions of them and others?

There's nothing wrong with having a measure of wealth, the problem is with the *amassing* of wealth beyond one's needs.





But isn't it possible that people could come to the realization that agreeing to excercise self-restraint would be in their own best interests? How else can we escape the necessity of having regulations and their consequent enforcement entities? Why should people restrain themselves from wealth they accumlate from volintary activites?

Because restraining oneself from accumulating beyond one's needs fosters a climate in which people can overcome the fear of scarcity, which in turn leads to both societal and individual well-being.





Re irrational/extravagant needs, I'm assuming the people in my hypothetical community are honest and free of neuroses. This is a utopian argument if I ever heard, but aside from this what if the extravgent needs are beyond their control, such as medical needs. An example might be if a person contracts some sort of viruse that cost much of the communities wealth to combat, lets say twenty percent of the total wealth of the community.
What's so utopian about the possibility that people could evolve to a point where they're psychologically healthy?

Re your example, the person should be free to pursue treatment so long as he/she isn't jeopardizing others.





Re your above example, I would say that accumulation will invariably lead to expansionism which will necessitate all sorts of nastiness, not least, war, so even though you might eliminate the state, the evils that you'd hoped to escape would soon return. I object as long as any expansion of wealth is voluntary then it will not lead to any of those said things. Also lets face war is expensive and because all wealth accumalted would come from voluntary trade between different indivduals, unlike taxation and other state theft, and thus the funds for waging war would be rather hard to come by. Not to mention any people who wage an agressive war would proably be seen with disdain as there is very little profit to be made in non-state warfare.

How does being voluntary make expansionism such that it wouldn't lead to war?

Seems to me that so long as there is banking then war will remain feasible.




In the absence of the sort of people I described above, I think that there would be all manner of petty and serious squabbles that would need to be adjudicated and this would require some sort of a state, no? I object no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Also this is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately. Not to mention this is a circular and contradicting argument, in which it implicitly advocates a monopoly on force to stop a monopoly on force from arising.


You seem not to realize that many in our world are accustomed to being slaves of one sort or another and are not predisposed to taking on the responsibility that freedom entails. Such people place little or no value on liberty, unless you define liberty as being able to choose which brand of laundry detergent to buy.

Also, you fail to address the issue of corruption. Do you assume that by eliminating the state that you will consequently have eliminated corruption?

If so, that is an erroneus assumption, as it is not the state that is the source of corruption, and in failing to root out corruption, you will fail to realize any significant societal improvement.

[Red Dragon]

I'm assuming that the people of this hypothetical community would be likeminded and capable of reaching agreement on important issues, and a cap would be one of the fundamental elements of it's foundation, as self-restraint is the only way that I'm aware of that a stateless society could exist and function. Without ethics, men are just clever animals, no? This sounds somewhat utopian to me, why would people restrain themselves from aquring wealth from the volintary actions of them and others?

There's nothing wrong with having a measure of wealth, the problem is with the *amassing* of wealth beyond one's needs. Again what is need, need is subjective to the individual. People all ready stop amassing property because they don't feel the need for it. The reason I don't buy twelve hummers is because subjectively I feel that I do not have a need from them. But someone might subjectively feel that they need twelve hummers. Now shouldn't that individual be able to purse it's goal as long as the wealth it acquires, in this case the hummers, is from voluntary trade with others? If not then you are making the claim that individuals should not determine their needs.





But isn't it possible that people could come to the realization that agreeing to excercise self-restraint would be in their own best interests? How else can we escape the necessity of having regulations and their consequent enforcement entities? Why should people restrain themselves from wealth they accumlate from volintary activites?

Because restraining oneself from accumulating beyond one's needs fosters a climate in which people can overcome the fear of scarcity, which in turn leads to both societal and individual well-being. Again need is subjective who has the morality athourity to decide what a person can and can not have?




Re irrational/extravagant needs, I'm assuming the people in my hypothetical community are honest and free of neuroses. This is a utopian argument if I ever heard, but aside from this what if the extravgent needs are beyond their control, such as medical needs. An example might be if a person contracts some sort of viruse that cost much of the communities wealth to combat, lets say twenty percent of the total wealth of the community.
What's so utopian about the possibility that people could evolve to a point where they're psychologically healthy? Because utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, and this psychological evolution would be change in human nature.


Re your example, the person should be free to pursue treatment so long as he/she isn't jeopardizing others. Yes but due to the restrictions he placed on his wealth he does not have the wealth needed as he put these restrictions on himself before he needed the treatment and thus did not take this into account. Thus he must rely on the wealth of others, but if he's not well liked in the community then he will most likely not receive treatment. And thus this society has broken its promise of providing his needs. And we can't force the community to give him the wealth for his medical needs, so really all trade in your society is voluntary and based on agreements between two or more individuals, and thus we are referring to the same society. The only difference is that you believe that if people don't your moral code chaos will insure.




Re your above example, I would say that accumulation will invariably lead to expansionism which will necessitate all sorts of nastiness, not least, war, so even though you might eliminate the state, the evils that you'd hoped to escape would soon return. I object as long as any expansion of wealth is voluntary then it will not lead to any of those said things. Also lets face war is expensive and because all wealth accumalted would come from voluntary trade between different indivduals, unlike taxation and other state theft, and thus the funds for waging war would be rather hard to come by. Not to mention any people who wage an agressive war would proably be seen with disdain as there is very little profit to be made in non-state warfare.

How does being voluntary make expansionism such that it wouldn't lead to war?

Seems to me that so long as there is banking then war will remain feasible. I never said war will not exist only that it will be less common as the state, the main causes of most wars, will not exist. Thus war will be less seen in anarchy as there will be fewer incentives to go to war. Just as there are more incentives for drug prohibition in a state society then an anarchic society. I’m mean can you imagine if someone tried to ban drugs in anarchy, they would be a laughing stock. You would have to actually convince people to go fight whoever it is you want destroyed, and you wouldn't be able to rely upon patriotism or nationalism in them.



In the absence of the sort of people I described above, I think that there would be all manner of petty and serious squabbles that would need to be adjudicated and this would require some sort of a state, no? I object no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Also this is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately. Not to mention this is a circular and contradicting argument, in which it implicitly advocates a monopoly on force to stop a monopoly on force from arising.


You seem not to realize that many in our world are accustomed to being slaves of one sort or another and are not predisposed to taking on the responsibility that freedom entails. I disaggree an individual no matter how ignorant, how stupid, or how deluded should be allowed to choose their destiny. Anything else is oppression.

Such people place little or no value on liberty, unless you define liberty as being able to choose which brand of laundry detergent to buy. Of course freedom of choice means that freedom of choice. If I am not able to choose what to do with my wealth, then that is oppression of the individual. Strangely though you are proposing that people are not intellectually ready for anarchy and thus need the state. But since the state leaders will act on their private interests. Thus they will keep the people ignorant of the knowledge needed to form your society. Thus your claim of gradual intellectual evolution will lead to anarchy is false, for as long as the state exists it will continue to oppress the individual.


Also, you fail to address the issue of corruption. Do you assume that by eliminating the state that you will consequently have eliminated corruption? Of course not that would be utopian, as long as human nature stays, as it is there will be corruption. And I don’t see human nature changing anytime soon.


If so, that is an erroneus assumption, as it is not the state that is the source of corruption, and in failing to root out corruption, you will fail to realize any significant societal improvement.
Anarchy is not about improving society; all it is doing is allowing for maximum freedom and liberty, whether this will improve society or not is not important. I judge a society by the amount of freedom the people have, not how orderly or stable it is.

[Pogo]

There's nothing wrong with having a measure of wealth, the problem is with the *amassing* of wealth beyond one's needs. Again what is need, need is subjective to the individual. People all ready stop amassing property because they don't feel the need for it. The reason I don't buy twelve hummers is because subjectively I feel that I do not have a need from them. But someone might subjectively feel that they need twelve hummers. Now shouldn't that individual be able to purse it's goal as long as the wealth it acquires, in this case the hummers, is from voluntary trade with others? If not then you are making the claim that individuals should not determine their needs.

I think people should determine what their needs are but I am aware that this process requires a high degree of honesty.





Because restraining oneself from accumulating beyond one's needs fosters a climate in which people can overcome the fear of scarcity, which in turn leads to both societal and individual well-being. Again need is subjective who has the morality athourity to decide what a person can and can not have?

Is there something immoral in expecting that one not excercise their freedom in a manner that is detrimental to others?





What's so utopian about the possibility that people could evolve to a point where they're psychologically healthy? Because utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, and this psychological evolution would be change in human nature.

Do you dispute the validity of the theory of evolution? Would you say that this process has already reached it's zenith?

What is impractical in allowing that human beings will continue to evolve and will reach a point beyond their present state of evolution?




Re your example, the person should be free to pursue treatment so long as he/she isn't jeopardizing others. Yes but due to the restrictions he placed on his wealth he does not have the wealth needed as he put these restrictions on himself before he needed the treatment and thus did not take this into account. Thus he must rely on the wealth of others, but if he's not well liked in the community then he will most likely not receive treatment. And thus this society has broken its promise of providing his needs. And we can't force the community to give him the wealth for his medical needs, so really all trade in your society is voluntary and based on agreements between two or more individuals, and thus we are referring to the same society. The only difference is that you believe that if people don't your moral code chaos will insure.

What would have prevented this person from paying into an insurance plan? certainly not anything I've suggested.





How does being voluntary make expansionism such that it wouldn't lead to war?

Seems to me that so long as there is banking then war will remain feasible. I never said war will not exist only that it will be less common as the state, the main causes of most wars, will not exist. Thus war will be less seen in anarchy as there will be fewer incentives to go to war. Just as there are more incentives for drug prohibition in a state society then an anarchic society. I’m mean can you imagine if someone tried to ban drugs in anarchy, they would be a laughing stock. You would have to actually convince people to go fight whoever it is you want destroyed, and you wouldn't be able to rely upon patriotism or nationalism in them.

But since you oppose limiting the accumulation of wealth, it is almost a certainty that there would exist powerful interests having the wherewithal to hire mercenaries to do their bidding, no?




You seem not to realize that many in our world are accustomed to being slaves of one sort or another and are not predisposed to taking on the responsibility that freedom entails. I disaggree an individual no matter how ignorant, how stupid, or how deluded should be allowed to choose their destiny. Anything else is oppression.

And the destiny they choose might very well be to remain a slave.




Such people place little or no value on liberty, unless you define liberty as being able to choose which brand of laundry detergent to buy. Of course freedom of choice means that freedom of choice. If I am not able to choose what to do with my wealth, then that is oppression of the individual. Strangely though you are proposing that people are not intellectually ready for anarchy and thus need the state. But since the state leaders will act on their private interests. Thus they will keep the people ignorant of the knowledge needed to form your society. Thus your claim of gradual intellectual evolution will lead to anarchy is false, for as long as the state exists it will continue to oppress the individual.

In my neck of the woods, the masses aren't rising up to throw off their shackles quite yet, how about in yours? :madlaugh:

As important resources become increasingly scarcer, it will become more and more apparent to the masses that the state's interests diverge from their own, I think, but for many it will already be too late, as they have no plan b. Many are going to die for lack of survival skills.





Also, you fail to address the issue of corruption. Do you assume that by eliminating the state that you will consequently have eliminated corruption? Of course not that would be utopian, as long as human nature stays, as it is there will be corruption. And I don’t see human nature changing anytime soon.

There's profound changes taking place in our environment so I expect that fairly profound changes will also occur in the human mindset. We shall see.





If so, that is an erroneus assumption, as it is not the state that is the source of corruption, and in failing to root out corruption, you will fail to realize any significant societal improvement.
Anarchy is not about improving society; all it is doing is allowing for maximum freedom and liberty, whether this will improve society or not is not important. I judge a society by the amount of freedom the people have, not how orderly or stable it is.

To each their own.

[firefox]

I think we need to create a common terminology of completly new words for the description of Anarchism. Seriously, I hate it when you are both saying the same thing, but are using different words that lead to conflict. It happens way too often in the english language.


Ain't that the truth! If there's an Anarchist's Cookbook, there should be an Anarchist's Dictionary too right? 8-)

[Red Dragon]

There's nothing wrong with having a measure of wealth, the problem is with the *amassing* of wealth beyond one's needs. Again what is need, need is subjective to the individual. People all ready stop amassing property because they don't feel the need for it. The reason I don't buy twelve hummers is because subjectively I feel that I do not have a need from them. But someone might subjectively feel that they need twelve hummers. Now shouldn't that individual be able to purse it's goal as long as the wealth it acquires, in this case the hummers, is from voluntary trade with others? If not then you are making the claim that individuals should not determine their needs.

I think people should determine what their needs are but I am aware that this process requires a high degree of honesty. Yes it most likely would, though the majority of humans myself included do not have this degree of honesty.




Because restraining oneself from accumulating beyond one's needs fosters a climate in which people can overcome the fear of scarcity, which in turn leads to both societal and individual well-being. Again need is subjective who has the morality athourity to decide what a person can and can not have?

Is there something immoral in expecting that one not excercise their freedom in a manner that is detrimental to others? As long as they have aqcuired their wealth through voluntary means, what is the problem?




What's so utopian about the possibility that people could evolve to a point where they're psychologically healthy? Because utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, and this psychological evolution would be change in human nature.

Do you dispute the validity of the theory of evolution? Would you say that this process has already reached it's zenith?

What is impractical in allowing that human beings will continue to evolve and will reach a point beyond their present state of evolution? I do not object to the theroy of evolution I only object to your hypothesis, that humans will become the figures you describe, especially seeing as you have presented no evidence that humans will follow this evolutionary branch. Otherwise I could just claim that my society will solve the energy crisis, because by the time we have a free market society we will have perfected machines capable of Perpetual motion.




Re your example, the person should be free to pursue treatment so long as he/she isn't jeopardizing others. Yes but due to the restrictions he placed on his wealth he does not have the wealth needed as he put these restrictions on himself before he needed the treatment and thus did not take this into account. Thus he must rely on the wealth of others, but if he's not well liked in the community then he will most likely not receive treatment. And thus this society has broken its promise of providing his needs. And we can't force the community to give him the wealth for his medical needs, so really all trade in your society is voluntary and based on agreements between two or more individuals, and thus we are referring to the same society. The only difference is that you believe that if people don't your moral code chaos will insure.

What would have prevented this person from paying into an insurance plan? certainly not anything I've suggested. Depends whether the disease came upon him before or after he payed into his specific insurance plan if he did it before then his policy proably would not cover it, if he tried to pay into an insurance plicy after he contracted the disease he would have a tough time getting an insurance policy wouldn't he?





How does being voluntary make expansionism such that it wouldn't lead to war?

Seems to me that so long as there is banking then war will remain feasible. I never said war will not exist only that it will be less common as the state, the main causes of most wars, will not exist. Thus war will be less seen in anarchy as there will be fewer incentives to go to war. Just as there are more incentives for drug prohibition in a state society then an anarchic society. I’m mean can you imagine if someone tried to ban drugs in anarchy, they would be a laughing stock. You would have to actually convince people to go fight whoever it is you want destroyed, and you wouldn't be able to rely upon patriotism or nationalism in them.

But since you oppose limiting the accumulation of wealth, it is almost a certainty that there would exist powerful interests having the wherewithal to hire mercenaries to do their bidding, no? This is somehow different from what we have now, or is the state not coercive monoply? But beyond that this is not voluntary exchange of wealth, so those who were threatend by that individual with statist mindset and his hired goons would have the right to defend themselves in whatever way they deemed necessary.




You seem not to realize that many in our world are accustomed to being slaves of one sort or another and are not predisposed to taking on the responsibility that freedom entails. I disaggree an individual no matter how ignorant, how stupid, or how deluded should be allowed to choose their destiny. Anything else is oppression.
And the destiny they choose might very well be to remain a slave. Then they have the right to be idiotic, it's a shame but since they're being a slave on their own free will nothing can really be done, except maybe make an attempt to educate them.




Such people place little or no value on liberty, unless you define liberty as being able to choose which brand of laundry detergent to buy. Of course freedom of choice means that freedom of choice. If I am not able to choose what to do with my wealth, then that is oppression of the individual. Strangely though you are proposing that people are not intellectually ready for anarchy and thus need the state. But since the state leaders will act on their private interests. Thus they will keep the people ignorant of the knowledge needed to form your society. Thus your claim of gradual intellectual evolution will lead to anarchy is false, for as long as the state exists it will continue to oppress the individual.
In my neck of the woods, the masses aren't rising up to throw off their shackles quite yet, how about in yours? :madlaugh: And you call yourself an anarchist, how can you sleep at night? Besides how can people become like you describe them if they live under the state which is the exact opposite of the picture you paint?

As important resources become increasingly scarcer, it will become more and more apparent to the masses that the state's interests diverge from their own, I think, but for many it will already be too late, as they have no plan b. Many are going to die for lack of survival skills. Yes it is sad that people rely far too much on the goverment, but this is their own fault and they will face the consequences of their actions.





Also, you fail to address the issue of corruption. Do you assume that by eliminating the state that you will consequently have eliminated corruption? Of course not that would be utopian, as long as human nature stays, as it is there will be corruption. And I don’t see human nature changing anytime soon.
There's profound changes taking place in our environment so I expect that fairly profound changes will also occur in the human mindset. We shall see. I suppose we will.




If so, that is an erroneus assumption, as it is not the state that is the source of corruption, and in failing to root out corruption, you will fail to realize any significant societal improvement.
Anarchy is not about improving society; all it is doing is allowing for maximum freedom and liberty, whether this will improve society or not is not important. I judge a society by the amount of freedom the people have, not how orderly or stable it is.
To each their own.
Well it's like my Grnadfather use to say better to live for but a second in liberty, then to live forever in chains.

[crimzonsol]

Ain't that the truth! If there's an Anarchist's Cookbook, there should be an Anarchist's Dictionary too right?

But then we'll get people who argue that we are oppressing them because we are using authority to define words and such. We need something better...

[firefox]

Like what? You can have authorities as long as they are voluntary and don't initiate force.

[NoXioN]

I think the main differene between Anarchism and Libertarianism is the rigth to own property.

...?

Anarchists do not believe in the right to own property,

They don't?

everything is decide by an agreement between all parties that would be affected.

The only abolition of "property" offered by anarchists is that of private property, not personal property. These need to be distinguished. Of course you can own property, it's all in the distribution. Most anarchists, those of the "Social Anarchist" wing of the ideology, advocate the abolition of the State and capitalism (and all modes of production associated with it) in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary association, mutual aid, and the cooperation of free individuals, economically organized in a socialist economy based on marxian sentiments of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Now, you say that everything would be decided between all affected; this is, in a sense, correct; the distribution of the fruits of production would be democratically determined; but that is hardly at the core of distinguishing Libertarianism and Anarchism. Assuming by Libertarian you mean the modern definition of libertarian (as Libertarian and Anarchist used to be synonymous), there are far more important differences to observe; first of all, definitions and ideas about the State; the Libertarians are minarchist at their most radical, the anarchists wishing for the abolition of State altogether.Secondly, Anarchism and Libertarianism differ economically; Libertarianism is capitalist, specifically laissez-faire; Anarchism is highly associated with economic Communism. Of course, the Individualist wing of Anarchism such as Mutualist Anarchism or Capitalist Anarchism, are similar to Libertarian economics; but even Capitalist Anarchism is very different than a laissez-faire State. All in all, Anarchism solely stems difference in views on government. Libertarians believe it is a necessary evil, Anarchists view it as unnecessary and that it needs to be destroyed for the best interests of the people.

Libertarianism there is a right to own property.

Rather, there is an existence of private property. I think your understanding of capitalist and socialist economics and their differences are a bit wishy-washy, yes?

What would you consider the fundametals of Anarchism, the basis for all of these other beliefs.

The abolition of the State in favor of another social organization.

I'm not too familiar with Anarchism but what I've come to understand is Anarchy means no government at all.

You are absolutely right, but this does not mean that Anarchists advocate any sort of chaos; free cooperation and mutual aid, and an emphasis of class equality, is popular in the anarchist movement.

Libertarianism is permissive of government function to the minimal extent required to maintain the peace, enforce laws, and protect the people. Anarchists believe there should be no government whatsoever.

Libertarians are under the illusion people are inherently misbehaved. Rather, his goodness is assured, and his wrongdoing is socio-economically aquired, and in my opinion caused by capitalist modes of production.

Malte, do you think syndicalism can gain popularity in a post-industrial economy? I don't pretend to know either way, but so far the de facto application has been artisan and heavy industry type professions.

I'll answer that, as this member seems inactive. And I'm an actual Syndicalist, as it happens. Syndicalism can only successfully overthrow capitalism in an industrial economy where there is industrial workers-- as the industrial working class is the revolutionary class in principle. Therefore, Syndicalism can only grow in industrial areas; under-developed countries (that should at some point in time industrialize when conditions allow it to) cannot have effective Syndicalist movements.

Not sure if this was touched on but anarchism and libertarianism can be the same thing. Anarchocapitalism.

While similar, Libertarianism still preserves the State whilst Capitalist Anarchism abolishes it.

I like what Noam Chomsky has to say. Some people call him anarchist. He calls himself more a social libertarian.

Noam Chomsky is most definitely an Anarchist and a Syndicalist. Check out his book Chomsky on Anarchism, it's a nice read. And while I'm at it I'd like to reccomend to all some basic Anarchist theory:

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin
Anarchism and other Essays by Emma Goldman
Anarchy, a pamphlet by Errico Malatesta
The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

these were all Social Anarchist writings, for some essential Market Anarchism check out:

What is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
...and I don't know anything else because Market Anarchism is stupid.

[firefox]

Malte, do you think syndicalism can gain popularity in a post-industrial economy? I don't pretend to know either way, but so far the de facto application has been artisan and heavy industry type professions.

I'll answer that, as this member seems inactive. And I'm an actual Syndicalist, as it happens. Syndicalism can only successfully overthrow capitalism in an industrial economy where there is industrial workers-- as the industrial working class is the revolutionary class in principle. Therefore, Syndicalism can only grow in industrial areas; under-developed countries (that should at some point in time industrialize when conditions allow it to) cannot have effective Syndicalist movements.


What about in post-industrial economies like the US? What makes industrial economies special?


...and I don't know anything else because Market Anarchism is stupid.


I would suggest reading some of the works by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Much of their work can be read for free at mises.org.

[NoXioN]

What about in post-industrial economies like the US? What makes industrial economies special?

I suppose any economic stage in which there is the industrial worker. The labour union is the specific militant revolutionary vehicle at play, so industrial or any modern economy would work. For instance, Syndicalism could never have prevaled in a country with large peasentries because of a lack of urban proletariat and industrial trade-unionism.

I would suggest reading some of the works by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Much of their work can be read for free at mises.org.

Excuse me, allow me to rephrase. Anything important, insightful, or agreeable. P. J. Proudhon is the only Market Anarchist worth listening to; Capitalism and all market-"isms" are ineffective and anti-working class interests.

[firefox]

I suppose any economic stage in which there is the industrial worker. The labour union is the specific militant revolutionary vehicle at play, so industrial or any modern economy would work. For instance, Syndicalism could never have prevaled in a country with large peasentries because of a lack of urban proletariat and industrial trade-unionism.


What if peasants or IT consultants decided to form some kind of large scale mutual aid organization? Would this not count?


Excuse me, allow me to rephrase. Anything important, insightful, or agreeable. P. J. Proudhon is the only Market Anarchist worth listening to; Capitalism and all market-"isms" are ineffective and anti-working class interests.


I think they are highly worthwhile. If I took the time to skim through your works, the least you can do is skim through mine, man.

[NoXioN]

What if peasants or IT consultants decided to form some kind of large scale mutual aid organization? Would this not count?

Syndicalism is specifically an ideology of organized labour, and one that utilizes labour and trade unions to achieve revolutionary means. We believe the capitalists have given us the means of revolution all by themselves; recognized by us as their most fatal flaw. I do not think I can explain it as well as another Syndicalist theorist, perhaps Georgs Sorel or another early Syndicalist can outline revolutionary condition s in much more effective terminology then I.

I think they are highly worthwhile. If I took the time to skim through your works, the least you can do is skim through mine, man.

If not only to know my enemy, I will respect your request and devote time to learning further the theory of Market Anarchism and Libertarianism, though my critiques of their economic and socio-economic positions are specific, sound, and grand in quanity.[hr]I may ask, however, what specific works would you recommend to gain a basic understanding of Mises' thought; and then more intermediate work?

[davo]

What would you consider the fundametals of Anarchism, the basis for all of these other beliefs.

The abolition of the State in favor of another social organization.


Then what is the new social organization that an anarchist likes to see emerge; and what social organization actually does emerge in that situation?


I'm not too familiar with Anarchism but what I've come to understand is Anarchy means no government at all.

You are absolutely right, but this does not mean that Anarchists advocate any sort of chaos; free cooperation and mutual aid, and an emphasis of class equality, is popular in the anarchist movement.


In the absence of government, what's stopping the people with the most guns from robbing/raping/murdering the rest, and otherwise imposing their will on them, or essentially becoming a new tyrannical government themselves? A libertarian acknowledges that government needs to exist to a certain extent to protect liberties and stop this from happening - going from no government at all to totalitarianism, whereas an anarchist requires the goodwill of the people to support the ideology.


Libertarianism is permissive of government function to the minimal extent required to maintain the peace, enforce laws, and protect the people. Anarchists believe there should be no government whatsoever.

Libertarians are under the illusion people are inherently misbehaved. Rather, his goodness is assured, and his wrongdoing is socio-economically aquired, and in my opinion caused by capitalist modes of production.

A more realistic answer is that its human nature to seek power over others, no matter what form of government you have in place. People naturally are well intentioned some of the time, but some will always attempt to dominate others given the opportunity. Most anarchists also seem to be under the illusion that nobody will misbehave and everyone will subscribe to anarchist ideology. Anarchism is no longer Anarchism if you have to force people to follow it.


Malte, do you think syndicalism can gain popularity in a post-industrial economy? I don't pretend to know either way, but so far the de facto application has been artisan and heavy industry type professions.

I'll answer that, as this member seems inactive. And I'm an actual Syndicalist, as it happens. Syndicalism can only successfully overthrow capitalism in an industrial economy where there is industrial workers-- as the industrial working class is the revolutionary class in principle. Therefore, Syndicalism can only grow in industrial areas; under-developed countries (that should at some point in time industrialize when conditions allow it to) cannot have effective Syndicalist movements.


What about in agriculture? If agricultural workers took up arms and controlled a nation's food supply, or refused to work, they could eventually force any government out.