Greetings FDR Friends,
This is my first official venture into the forums after spending a year absorbing this philosophy (really, philosophy in general) and reconciling it with my own life. It's a challenging journey as you all know, and I have a lot of growing I still need to do.
I think it's important to improve my communication and debate skills so when people express interest in the NAP, UPB, FDR, or various other three letter acronyms, I can engage them critically and fairly.
With that said, I'd like to show you guys a dialogue and just ask your opinion: what, if anything, could I have done differently in this discussion? I'm sorry if this may seem trivial, but I think an exchange like this could be a good opportunity for learning.
Background: I posted a link to Dogecoin (http://dogecoin.com/) on Facebook, semi-jokingly recommending friends to pick some up after last night's crash in the dollar value of Bitcoin. An acquaintance responded and the discussion moved to anarchism. I'll call him "Acquaintance" and I'll call myself "Todd" because that's my name.
Todd: While Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies suffer from China's regulatory environment, Dogecoin continues to appreciate!
Acquaintance: "...there can be no de-politicised currency capable of ‘powering’ an advanced, industrial society."-Yanis Varoufakis
T: I posted this in jest although I do have a (currently much smaller) stake in Bitcoin. Being an anarcho-capitalist, I've gotta put my money where my mouth is. Currencies evolve over time for a few select qualities that I do think Bitcoin embodies, although it certainly has fundamental flaws. I'll support exploration of any alternative to fiat, central-authority backed money.
A: 'Anarcho-capitalism' doesn't even work on paper. It's really a right wing, pro-business propaganda word and has nothing to do with anarchism.
T: I appreciate your perspective. I am pro-business, Alex. I also acknowledge self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, and property rights. If that makes me right-wing, then I'm willing to accept that as a consequence. I have yet to find a more rational and universally consistent moral framework although I'm always open to new ideas. It does seem that there are two main schools of anarchism, and it's interesting that they could not be further apart ideologically. However, I don't think the socialist school of anarchism has exclusive privilege to the term.
A: Just don't pretend you are an anarchist by adhering to a far right wing pro business ideology. Capitalism has zero to do with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a propaganda word cooked up by right wing pro business think tanks to bamboozle people who might otherwise seek to organize the economy along sane principles. (my emphasis)
T: Thanks for the discussion. If you have a rational argument or any essays that show the non-aggression principle to be morally inconsistent, I'll be happy to examine it and correct myself if I'm wrong. But I can't draw any conclusions whatsoever against your previous statement, which appears to be ad-hominem and false equivocation.
A: Thanks for your sarcasm, which was not invited. You can hitch your wagon to any star you like.
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." [Democracy: the God that Failed, p. 218]
"Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny." In fact it (like other contemporary ideologies) "reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 235 and p. 181]
As such, it is hard not to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words. It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated in this so-called "libertarian social order.""
So yeah, I'm attacking you, ad homimen if you like, because you are glibly advocating a dangerous and tyrannical economic order that would have anarchists expelled from society or worse.
T: I'll read through the resource you provided and see what conclusions I can draw. I'm not sure where you found sarcasm in anything I wrote and there was none intended. I also don't intend to engage in a discussion where I am admittedly being attacked rather than approached with reason, so thank you for you time and thoughts.
At this point, I pressed the dreaded "unfriend" button, which he responded to with a private message:
A: See how it works? You have already excluded me. Anarcho capitalists are in the removal business. Are you the worst sort of hypocrite? Looks to be the case.
T: I'm not going to engage in a futile conversation where I am called names. Sorry.
A: You're a fool and that's a fact. When you crow in a public place that you're an anarcho capitalist you are doing worse than call people names. Get over yourself and grow up. Learn a damn thing about these ideologies before shitcanning people who might try and point to alternatives. Summarily executed symbolically on facebook. That's what an anarchocapitalist regime would do to real anarchists. Expell, correct, execute. Ugh.
The End
I feel myself getting emotional as I read through this. It's a mix of anger and sadness and I think it's making it more challenging for me to view the exchange objectively.
If you've made it this far, congratulations and thank you! I'd love any thoughts in terms of the debate itself, his arguments, what I did right and wrong, and what I could do in the future.
Cheers!
I agree. His focus on exclusion seems to be very deep rooted. I'm not sure he even understood the NAP and perhaps I should have presented a clear definition. Thank you for mentioning that I should have asked what his sane principles are and I think you're absolutely right. But I also had a strong feeling that anything I said would be met with more aggression and insults. I appreciate that, and I think this was a great example of calling the ad hominem fallacy to no benefit of the argument. Part of why I mentioned it was just so my other friends could be aware, but I could have done that afterwards instead of the middle of the discussion. Thanks!