Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
booktv.org
booktv.org
"On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a historical lineage; Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action.
The collection includes a revealing new introduction by journalist Nathan Schneider, who documented the Occupy movement for Harper's and The Nation, and who places Chomsky's ideas in the contemporary political moment. On Anarchism will be essential reading for a new generation of activists who are at the forefront of a resurgence of interest in anarchism—and for anyone who struggles with what can be done to create a more just world."
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky-ebook/dp/B00E25...
In democracy (imperfect as it may be) we get to elect people who choose laws and thus authorize violence only in mandated situations.
Without rules - including law - is all violence permitted?
Edit: from the book review: "Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action."
So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?
Statism : 90s Microsoft :: Anarchism : Web Standards
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but Web Standards are mandated by the W3C, which I don't see as an anarchistic organization, but more as an extended oligarchy.
To participate, an organization (from what I found, individuals cannot join) needs at least 1950.00 EUR per year.[1]
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees
I'm not criticizing W3C per se, just the fact that it's being compared to an anarchist way of doing things.
Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be ICANN vs. NameCoin; however in that case, the anarchist solution is far less proven. ;)
Just like people committing computer fraud call themselves hackers.
The fact that fraudsters (and media, as is the case with both 'hacker' and 'anarchist') use the term wrongly doesn't diminish the original and correct meaning that dates back to the 19th century.
Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.
Can you imagine people trying to encourage community and a family unit by trying to bring back Skinhead culture? Try as you might to explain its positive, non-racial origins, people just associate it with neo-naziism. And though I acknowledge Anarchism can be a productive form of collective organizing, if I see somebody with a torn jacket with a circled A patch on it, I think that person's a jackass.
Still I think the right way to overcome this is spreading information, not changing name.
Most people don't want to change their carefully-guarded vision of the world around them. If they already associate your movement with imagery of chaotic lawlessness they're not going to stop and listen to you on the off chance they might be misinformed. They're going to write you off immediately and go on with their life.
On the other hand, if you make a compromise and reform your presentation of ideas in a new way, people will be more likely to stop and listen. It's not enough to simply have a good idea; you have to sell it to them, too.
That would be Anomie. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie)
Edit:
> So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?
Yes, but in the US you have a representative democracy where you vote for some party which then makes changes or introduces new laws without asking you or anybody else.
In an anarchy you would not only be asked to vote on rules, you could actively take part on the creation of new rules.
Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor".
But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursuing their personal gain through commerce and investments etc, and you know self-interest is not going anywhere, regardless of what societal system happens to be in place.
On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership.
I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little disingenuous.
If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade.
>> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction
Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it.
>> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership.
I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists.
>> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others
Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.
No, no, no. We do not agree intuitively on what property is. What about a factory that you built with your own hands that becomes a utility for a community? At some point, your private property and private creations become integral to a community, and that's where things become muddy.
I want to add, lastly, that if we have a true competition of non-debt currency, we may have part of a solution. I have some thoughts written on my blog post, but it's not well thought out and perhaps somebody can build upon it.
http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory...
It's true that if a currency appreciates in value, buyers are disincentivized to spend. However, sellers also have the same knowledge, that the currency will gain value over time. Wouldn't that incentivize them to lower their prices in order to acquire the currency-as-investment, until the two meet in the middle? (Many of the merchants who accept BitCoin offer a BTC discount for this very reason.)
One practical way that we see this happen is in technology, where goods rapidly decrease in value. While a dollar might lose 5% of its value over the course of a year, that's nothing compared to buying a new computer. And so the onus is on computer makers to offer a compelling enough value and price to convince the user to upgrade, as opposed to living with an old machine, or waiting for a better one. At any given point in time, to buy a computer is micro-economically foolish, and yet transactions still manage to take place, because buyers and sellers eventually meet in the middle.
The trick to this, of course, is that this model only works if the currency deflates at a stable rate. BitCoin still has yet to establish itself in this regard; time will tell.
I also doubt that the deflationary spiral is a big issue as it's made out to be. To prove it, I assumed that it is a big issue, and then proved that it isn't -- proof by contradiction.
I think ultimately it all depends on how well a currency is designed or managed. An inflationary currency could outcompete an autonomous cryptocurrency in theory if it could introduce price stability as well as manage the macro economy. In practice this seems like an exercise in futility. Time will tell what happens with the current QE practices.
Libertarians often compare taxation to theft (and believe me, I'm sympathetic). But by that yardstick, taxation is voluntary: I have a choice between the costs and benefits of government, versus the transaction cost of leaving for another country, versus the risk of being thrown into a cage. I make my "choice", and both I and the government "benefit".
Meanwhile, if I need a certain drug to survive, and the provider of that drug charges $1000/month, we both benefit through that exchange, but it's hardly a choice on my part. Even if that drug could not have existed without the incentive of future rent-seeking on their part, I still have effectively zero negotiating leverage in that business relationship, and I would say it's exactly as "voluntary" as the taxation example above.
Look at it in terms of the Ultimatum Game [1]. If the 2nd party is offered only $1 from the 1st party's $20, they can choose to defect and spoil the benefit for both, which gives them bargaining power. But if the 2nd party is in deep poverty, this will effectively never happen, and if the 1st party knows this, they will always offer $1. Better than nothing? Sure, I guess. But realities of biology and survival render any lofty ideals of free will moot.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
> But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists.
In practice, no one defends their own property. If the only force preserving your land is you and your shotgun, ten of your neighbors might use their shotguns to disagree. It is through some combination of explicit law and implicit social contract for them to not do so, either soft-enforced in culture or hard-enforced by violence, that makes it possible for you to own and successfully defend your land. Possession might be 9/10ths of the law, but that last 1/10th makes a big difference.
> Capitalism is not a "system".
First, agreed on crony capitalism. That's a shit sandwich for everyone.
However, just because a system is emergent rather than engineered, does not mean it is not a system. Is the rainforest not a system? Or the orbital mechanics of the earth, the sun and the moon?
Moreover, in reality, markets are always affected by issues of public policy (and not deciding or doing nothing is still a decision):
- How are disputes managed, and what are the costs? Are you on your own for legal fees, or must the loser pay for the winner's costs? If not, do you tolerate SLAPP suits? [2]
- Where are the exact lines drawn around property? Can I prevent airplanes from flying over my land, if so, how high up? Can I give my cows as many antibiotics as I want, even if that weakens their effectiveness in the greater microbial ecosystem? Can I dump radioactive waste, which does not touch my neighbor's land, but which will gradually leak radiation for millions of years after my death?
- Intellectual property: how is it defined and enforced? (Good luck defending a copyright with a shotgun.) How long do copyrights last? Are there patents, and who decides what's patent-worthy? There is obviously a high moral hazard for crony capitalism here, but it is difficult to capitalize on intellectual and creative output without rules governing IP.
You probably have answers for these issues. They might be very good answers. But the point is that capitalism does not emerge perfectly formed from nature: while it is powered by emergent and distributed forces, it is always going to be shaped by culture and law and history, and there are a plethora of potential capitalist systems.
To re-iterate, I'm not arguing against capitalism; I do not dispute that markets create wealth. I'm saying that, at best, "pure" libertarian capitalism is an implementation of negative rights [3], and that this is a far cry from the narrative of calling all transactions "voluntary". Even if all forms of state solutions are worse (they might be), people under immediate pressures of life and death do not effectively have any choice, any more than they do against direct state violence.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publi...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Then perhaps the discussion is really about what the world should be like in the future. If the discussion brings together Anarcho-* of all sorts to dismantle the current regime, it would be time well spent.
In the very least he helps us disassemble the (often conflicting) definitions so that we can better understand the origins and biases, thereby allowing us to reason more clearly about our reality.
But yeah, I get your point.
But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right.
Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition
By the way anarcho-capitalism is compatible top down with other form of more strict anarchism. You can make a voluntary anarcho-communistic society inside anarcho-capitalistic society.
Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on.
That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk. This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be impossible because of the golden mean...
Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities.
We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay?
"But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cotton?!" - the correct answer is: "who fucking cares? Slavery is immoral and needs to stop."
Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.
1) Public education is shit anyway,
and mostly just meant to
indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism.
2) Private schools would do a vastly better job,
for a small fraction of the price.
As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.
Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system.
The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni...
We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.
What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum.
> The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.
Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong?
Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice.
Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.
That's what I'm saying. I wouldn't agree if we were in North Korea, but I will if we're talking about a third world country where the alternative to no public education is simply no education. What I see where I live is that where there is no public education, kids end up joining drug trafficking gangs, or end up crack addicts. If we're talking about Northern Europe, sure, go ahead, abolish public education, I won't be worried, I'm all for personal freedom from the state where it isn't irresponsible. It's just that some places, if you take away the state's presence, there are other forces with high interests in taking over that space where the state used to be.
Where I'm from, we have free schools (anarchist workshops where anyone can attend or present), volunteering workshops, apprenticeships, etc. If you're community has a mafia(s) abusing a local area, you don't send your kids to the biggest one for protection and call it moral. It's just more comfortable. The moral option would be to fight the coercion that your community is suffering from (which seems entrenched sadly).
Also, I don't think public schooling gives a free pass at the potentiality that these students won't join gangs. It's most likely a complex set of reasons that may include that gang being the dominant form of force in the area (a mafia/government w/o the monopoly on force).
Also, I don't believe there is such a thing a no education. Again, just because some people don't have book smarts doesn't mean they aren't smart.
Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.
I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails.
Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government.
Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?
If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which contributes to economic stagnation too, ofc).
Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
1) you want to help the poor
2) you confiscate wealth from other people, and give it to the poor
3) you have just removed money from the economy
and caused it to get used much less efficiently
than it would have, and demotivated lots of people
from doing business and producing value
to the world at large.In contrast, I do not have to justify my position that no ideology or system being proposed today is globally optimal. That is simply an accepted truism.
So basically, you're preaching from a pulpit of pure theory and ideology, while I'm down here saying that you need to provide empirical proof and can't, and I'm not the one making a claim of global optimality.
You don't get it. There's no need for "empirical studies", because it's a simple matter of reasoning.
Suppose Person A is fresh out of high school or something, and Company B might be interested in hiring him as some kind of entry level worker. Person A has basically no experience in anything, so he's worth very little to the employer. He really wants a job though, because he needs to start some kind of career to get by in life.
Suppose Company B consider's Person A's meager productivity worth $6 per hour, but the minimum wage is set to $10 per hour. Will Person A get the job?
Well, no. The minimum wage prevents Person A from getting a job, and thus, getting experience and advancing his skills and future salary potential. Everyone loses. Person A has no job and no further experience, and Company B has no employee and a task left undone.
If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
In which case you're preaching pure, deontological bunk with no relation to the real world whatsoever. You are literally claiming your ideology is the optimally moral economic system despite refusing even the concept of empirical evidence or justification.
>If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
Don't be ridiculous.
I just gave you a real-world demonstration of why minimum wage is harmful, and in very clear terms too. But I'm done with you for now.
> If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
Isn't correct. No individualist chooses anything for anyone else less it be voluntary and without force/coercion.
> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
Resorting to name calling isn't going to win you any awards. I'm an atheist and I just simple believe freedom comes at a cost of having to have individual responsibility in terms of sustaining your welfare and direction. I come from a multi-generational welfare home. The state pacified my family, it didn't help them. I broke the cycle through individual merit and determination. This would still allow you to do as you wish, so long as others volunteer for your collective, and you don't infringe on an individuals rights.
My system permits yours to exist. Does yours permit mine to exist? That's the real moral crossroads we sit at. Also:
> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups
You know Philosophy isn't science right? The fact you ask for it screams you're a utopian statist who simply wants to be god. What is your alternative to individual freedom? A complex set of fluidly changing social rules that bind/limit us all that go beyond violence? Jail or Injure a Man/Woman because they disagree to cooperate with your rules? Just don't harm or tell me what to do and we'll be friends. Sounds like that's not reciprocal with you, and that I'd be required to follow other rules, lest I be jailed/killed/banished/boycotted.
Also, it seems like any anarchist society not predicated on either individualist or consensus based policy is prone to majority rule. What do you do with opposition? Punish them? Even if they're non violent. This all screams government, which ruins the anarchy...
It does not matter how fair theft seems to the recipient of the services that are funded in such a way, it's still theft.
It is cool that you care about the unfortunate ones though. You are not alone in that — most people do, too. If we go from the assumption that democracies really represent the opinion of the majority, it can be seen that a lot of people do care.
So, if the majority of people really want to help the poor, they would still help (voluntarily this time) without a coercive apparatus, right?
(Obviously, private charities will be better at helping the poor, and private schools and medicine are doing a better job that the government does, but my reply focuses mainly on the moral side of things.)
That said, you are right. Taxes of any kind, if forced, is theft. If liberal minded individuals can't offer me a voluntary way to function from within society, than they'll be considered authoritarians to me. The only solution I can think of is a type of confederacy of anarchist collectives, where all collectives agree on basic freedoms (freedom to travel, freedom to leave, completely fair representation, etc) where some are bastions of socialism, and the other bastions of individualism.
The only problem I have as a right leaning anarchist with anarcho-capitalism, is wage labour. While I agree that the contract may be voluntary, the conditions leading to it may not have been, and we see exploitation in our current system regarding this, with some people becoming indentured servants.
Voluntarily-entered socialist bastions can indeed exist in an anarcho-capitalist system. As there is no state and hence nothing particularly limiting, they can aspire any kind of community — including a socialist one. As long as participation in this kind of community is voluntary, there is nothing wrong with it. Members of socialist communities may vary well subject themselves to community's rules and socialist dispute resolution providers in their internal matters.
To me it sounds like THEY want the monopoly on force to be governed by a majority or consensus, which would then impose taxes, threaten opposition with force, and centralize power.... Sounds like a government to me...
I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?
>> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?
My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against.
Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org
Deontology <: morality. That is, deontological moral codes are a strict subset of all moral codes people actually find compelling.
What I meant was that while I believe equality and guaranteed access to basic needs as the goal of humanity and necessary for future growth at some point, I also believe that it's impossible to achieve these goals through institutions and governments.
My moral change from being a left leaning anarchists to a right leaning anarchist was because I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to. But then it's hard to imagine a society where you can't work for a wage...
I think there's a saying about how cows in the slaughterhouse can't truly argue about what's outside. They both have no experience.
Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics: http://mises.org and you'll get around to reaching full sanity :p
Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule: the Non-Aggression Principle. It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people, nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever.
Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property.
Hence my objection: you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals.
You just made up a new political philosophy there.
>> It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people
The virtues "its system" inculcates in people? Look, we're all brainwashed into the cult of statism while growing up, and I've spent my time arguing against sanity too. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and start seeing reason when it's presented to you.
Freedom is not a "system". It's just the absence of coercion. If you want to call waking people up into reality, and trying to get them to be consistent and rational in their thinking "inculcation", then be my guest. But that changes nothing about the nature of the world we actually live in.
>> nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever.
Even if we all adhere to the NAP, which we're actually naturally inclined to do automatically (because it's not like people walk around wanting to hurt anyone) we're still free to use our common sense whenever the need arises.
In other words, the NAP is not some all-encompassing, universal moral absolute that rules out any and all considerations for what might be the right thing to do in some specific situation.
>> Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property.
Your brain is working pretty fucking hard in avoiding having to accept reason and reality. As I said, I've had to go through that phase too. But try and get past it already. Let Larken Rose be your therapist: http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos - he's awesome.
>> you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals
But "don't hurt anyone" is a pretty good moral rule, don't you think? -That's basically what the NAP says.
That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned.
But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?
That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it.
2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be.
I think both 1 and 2 make sense.
But if you acquire property legitimately, then there's no problem with it, even if it's not constantly in your possession, or occupied by you personally. Anything else would just not make sense. For example, if you park your car somewhere and go shopping, will the car cease to be your property just because you're not in it?
On a fundamental level, property can be thought of as "value you want to control". Something has value, and you get to benefit from it, because you've either produced the value yourself, or you've acquired it through a voluntary exchange (or contract etc). You build a house, the house has value as a dwelling, and you want to benefit from the house by either living in it or selling it to someone else.
Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?
Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please.
Oh, wait, it's your gun.
Taxes = Theft, Government = the Monopoly on Violence, and Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power. Your thoughts?
Agreed.
>> Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes
Yep, it's about taxes in the sense that Tax Farms want to retain their cattle, so they make it difficult for the cattle to leave, while still maintaining an illusion of freedom. Even a complete sheep would realize he's a slave if he weren't free to leave "his" country.
>> Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling.
Mandatory collective schooling, but imposed on everyone by something else than the state? .. That doesn't sound right either. Anything that is based on aggressing against people is immoral.
>> Taxes = Theft
I'm fine with "robbery", "rape", and "theft" and so on. But extortion is more accurate.
>> Government = the Monopoly on Violence
Yes, and thoroughly immoral.
>> Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power
This is where we disagree, it seems. You seem to be referring to Crony-Capitalism, or "Crapitalism". Corporations buy State power and using it to their own benefit, and of course, that will continue for as long as there is power to be bought. If there's nothing to bribe, then you can't bribe.
But in reality, Capitalism is just what people do in their pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges, contracts, agreements, and investments, etc. All backed by respect for property rights, of course. Without property rights, there would be just about no wealth in the world, because no one could expect to benefit from any value they might produce.
The absence of coercion ~ a free market ~ freedom ~ Capitalism. They all go hand in hand.
Humanity has gone through 6000 years of history under various forms of government, without any minarcho-capitalist regime ever coming to power in a broad domain. Somehow we've done just fine without it.
But well..it seems it is easier to fight about stuff that is so far away from the main and basic points that it all seems like just another invention of the financial system to control through endless diversity. "Controlled Chaos". I would love to hear R.A.Wilson on this.
The "anarchist anarchists" I know concentrate on education, patience and gathering&storage of information. Many of them decided that it needs to get a lot worse before relevant masses of people become so desperate that they will accept such a different way to think.
They belive in a "true anarchist revolution" because it would not devour its own children but allow them to play their games as long as they like and let them stop or leave when they have enough.
It has no issue owning your own house, car, laptop, etc etc. That is yours and does not belong to the state, or 'everyone', or anyone else. It just does not want rent seeking; owning other peoples' homes and means of production, or hoarding otherwise (eg owning vast tracts of land you do not use). So for example a factory should be owned by it's workers.
Anarco-capitalism is for "property" if you can defend it, even if it is more than say what a typical person needs for a normal life. Anarco-capitalism would also be for "property" owned by distributed-autonomous-corporations.
The only thing that can be ascribed to Anarchism, is the dethronement of a central "state". What you described is Anarcho-socialism.
Your statement is typical from anarcho-socialists who want to squat on the word "anarchism" while failing to define what property should be granted to an individual (call it possession if you wish), how to reach consensus about it, how to enforce it without a higher authority, and what to do about the higher authority that naturally arises in such a state of chaos.
At least anarcho-capitalists have an out when it comes to defining property... it's whatever you can afford to defend, probably through third parties that offer defense as as contract.
I'll keep saying this until I'm convinced otherwise: What is needed is something between anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism that both sides can agree upon, but such a thing cannot happen unless everybody looks further into the future, understanding that there are aspects of humanity & private trade that are both needed for us to prosper.
Squatting on the word "Anarchism" or calling one side or the other confused doesn't help either cause. They're both two ends of a spectrum and the reason why we have the spread is because we don't understand how to bridge the gap, or we don't yet understand that neither end points alone will go very far.
In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it.
From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp...
I'm no better off serving a local collective than a national collective.
It is certainly the case that anarcho-capitalists are for "no government."
EDIT: corrected year of unpublished Rothbard note
However, the interesting thing is that you can't (or haven't) pointed out any contradiction in what I said. If what I said is wrong, you should be able to correct me quite easily.
The Dunning-Kruger effect may be worth reading about, in this instance. Your lack of knowledge seems to be leading you to a false sense of confidence in your words and beliefs. I wasn't looking to argue with you the merits of anarchism vs. whatever you believe is more correct. I was, instead, looking to point out that you have a level of ignorance about anarchism (not even knowing what the word means) that should preclude you from speaking about it, except in the form of questions.
I believe this sort of approach applies to any subject, not just anarchism. I don't find your dismissive tone conducive to the level of discussion I expect from HN. I want to encourage you to be a better contributor to HN, not convince you to be an anarchist.
Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments.
> I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism
The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it.
That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government.
Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism.
I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean.
I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.
As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be?
But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing.
For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding.
Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc.
There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.
Well no. If we're talking about capitalist property, it's between a single individual and the entire rest of the human race at once. Or, if we want to be realistic, it's between an individual and anyone in shooting distance of that individual.
>Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour
No, it works to the favor of property owners and creditors (who are, essentially, fractional property-owners in people).
>imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property
Since the entire world is thus privatized, this "one simple trick!" becomes totalitarian.
I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology).
> But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand.
Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradictory."
> As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
That is a good question that people often have. I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force. Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.
The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate. Moreover, consider the case of a just war against a country that threatens the US; there may be civilian casualties among non-participants in the country of the enemy. The proximate cause of such casualties would be the US military, but the fundamental cause is the enemy government; they died to retaliatory force. A similar case is occuring when an ideal government uses force to collect minimal taxes to establish police, courts, and military. The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights. It would be ideal if all funding for government could be levied voluntarily, via donations, but if not, my argument here provides a solution.
This is not an Objectivist view, because it was not part of anything Ayn Rand wrote. I think many Objectivists would consider it to be compatible with Objectivism, while some no doubt wouldn't.
Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral.
>> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights
So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P
There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.
What is profoundly immoral is condemning everyone to barbarism via a system that will lead to massive rights violations, which is what you are proposing.
I don't actually need my neat little trick. Even before I realized the truth in that, I advocated for the minimal necessary taxation, in order to otherwise establish a rights-protecting society. That is the practical thing to do, and therefore it is the moral thing to do.
You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral. It is a floating conception (i.e. it cannot be induced from or reduced to reality).
> Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it?
Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone.
> But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.
Come on man, I'm not a moron. The idea doesn't fall on its face. That is just an assertion you are making.
OK, here's what you said earlier: >>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force.
But government is based on the initiation of force in taxation. Without taxes, there is no government, and without the threat of violence inflicted on you for attempting to keep your property, there is no taxation. That is immoral, plain and simple. It's extortion.
>>> Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.
Who are they "retaliating" against? If A initiates against B, is B then allowed to "retaliate" against C?
>>> The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate.
We agree on the first part, but who exactly is government retaliating against when taxing people? Remember, an individual is free to live all his life without aggressing against anyone, but if he doesn't give up his money to the government, then the government will aggress against him. Where's the retaliation in that? -Nowhere, that's where. It's simply clearly the initiation of force against an individual, even if he's never hurt anyone ever.
>> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral
I already did, see above.
>> Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone.
My point was that you can't both be sane, and "retaliate" against people who have not initiated against you. The possibility that someone, somewhere might want to violate your rights, does not make your force a retaliation if you're just aggressing against somone who's never done anything to you.
If A never actually initiates against anyone (regardless of any perceived/imagined willingness to do so), can B then "retaliate" against C? -That's roughly the idea you presented before.
Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties.
Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths.
If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory. The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights.
So when an ideal US forcibly taxes me, it is retaliating, for the same reason it is retaliating when there is a civilian casualty in Iran.
Anyway, we run the risk here of being rationalistic (i.e. talking all about concepts that ultimately are not connected to reality). There is another way to look at the point that I am making, which is to say: In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules. The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it. That is perfectly moral, and perfeclty practical. It is the use of force that makes the protection of rights possibile. (That would even still be true if government were 100% funded via donations, since it properly uses force against criminals anyway.)
> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral
You said it is immoral "plan and simple" because it's "extortion." Unless I missed your argument. That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.
For instance, many libertarians support the "nonaggression axiom." That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary.
The good news it that we actually can rigorously defend liberty using a chain of reasoning that starts from perceptual reality. And we should. Don't be satisfied to believe a good thing when you can also prove a good thing, which is so much better. :)
However, that reasoning will lead to the conclusion that a minimum necessary amount of taxation is, well, necessary, and thus justified. A proper theory of morality does not contradict that. I am willing to sacrifice the ideal of having zero taxes in exchange for being right.
Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified?
> If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory.
Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say?
> The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights.
So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan.
Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.
Because that was how I phrased the hypothetical.
> Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified?
Because in the hypothetical retaliatory force was being used to defend US citizens---something I believe is moral and which the guy I was talking to seems to agree with.
I don't think you are in agreement so I don't think we can progress at this point in the discussion. We would have to backtrack first to talking about retaliatory vs. initiatory force. That is too much to bite of in an HN comment discussion.
As a side note, you could switch the names of the countries, it doesn't matter.
Not really, mostly just trying to get you to see it doesn't make sense.
I won't go through your example with the US and Iran now, let's concentrate on your rationale for using force. You keep talking about retaliatory force but without anything to retaliate for.
First, someone has to initiate force against you, before you can retaliate with force, and you can't retaliate against some innocent bystander. If A has never done anything to harm anyone, B simply can't retaliate against him. It makes no sense.
Likewise, if Person A has never harmed anyone, then Government B simply cannot use force on A in retaliation for anything, regardless of the fact that taxes are needed for any government to do anything.
Furthermore, the mere possibility that someone somewhere might use force against you does not enable any kind of retaliation on your part. You just can't retaliate if no one has wronged you yet.
>> That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.
How about the idea of natural rights and the Non-Aggression Principle? -How about common sense, and our intuitive morality as human beings? For example, do you personally have the right to take someone else's property by force, even though he's never done anything to harm anyone?
>> That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary
The problem with philosophical debates is that anyone can just filibuster any conversation by delving into semantics or the nature of language or the meaning of specific words or whatever, or ultimately the nature of reality itself. "What do we really know about reality, or the nature of man as a life-form? For all we know, we could be living in a simulation!"
That's why it's understandable if some libertarians don't feel like bothering to argue about morality. But as for the NAP ("non-aggression axiom"), it really is axiomatic, and that's already enough by itself. You know it's wrong to aggress against anyone, and so does everyone else. It's just that if this principle is consistently applied to everyone regardless of whether they're in uniform or not, then governments are clearly seen as immoral.
>> In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules.
Does it? Think about how many people you know would go on a killing spree if suddenly there was no government tomorrow. -How about a string of robberies?
.. Or would most people just continue their everyday lives, trying to get by comfortably? -That's certainly what people in general would do in a free society, just like that's the way they behave now. If you don't have any intention of hurting anyone, then you have no problem adhering to the NAP.
>> The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it
Let's get this straight. Because the use of force is immoral, we need even more force to prevent the use of force, by force?
The use of force is immoral, so you want to establish the ultimate force - a monopoly on violence, to extort people in order to prevent the use of force?
We need to engage in Immorality, to prevent Immorality?
In other words, we need to do that which is forbidden, to discourage others from doing the same, because doing what's forbidden is.. forbidden?
We need to Violate, to prevent Violations, because Violations are not allowed?
Are you starting to see it? Do you see that if you adhere to the moral principle that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus, forbidden, then you can't base a whole society on top of exactly that which is forbidden, while still claiming to adhere to that specific moral principle. You can't get around that either, by making "retaliation" mean something that it does not actually mean here in the real world.
Actually, plenty of us pay taxes because we like having roads and schools and healthcare and firefighters and armies and such.
You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know...
Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.
I think this kid says it all best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q
So to me a government isn't just one person, nor is it a small collective. Any other form of socialism or large scale governance that isn't based on confederation in the loosest sense with small collectives respecting each others differences, simply has too much power IMO.
I'm not the OP but it seemed clear to me.
Right now governments conflict with each other using guns (and missiles, and drones, etc), if/when diplomacy fails.
If the law is the law of the individual, then each individual would be obligated to have his own 'defence department' if/when diplomacy fails.