Chompsky on Anarcho-Capitalism

[Mishelle]

Anyone interested in a serious discussion about the Chomsky videos and his scathing views of anarcho-capitalists?

 

What they're advocating though they don't know it is pure corporate tyranny, he says, along with a lot of other shaming and finger-wagging, as well as some points that deserve to be addressed.

 

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001627.txt

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChomskyVideos?feature=watch

 

I'd be very interested in learning how to logically, with a calm passion instead of snarky irritation, address his points.  Can anyone help me out with this?

 

 

 

 

[dsayers]

I haven't watched the videos and don't know if I will. However, I did want to point out that "corporate tyranny" CAN'T (not doesn't) describe anarcho-capitalism. Corporations are fictitious creations of the State. They would not be present in anything that could be described as anarchic. Additionally, tyranny requires two things to thrive: Lack of competition and lack of consequence. These would not be present in anything that could be described as capitalistic.

 

If you feel watching the videos would be advantageous despite this clarity, let me know and I might check them out anyways. I tend to not pursue that which dosn't even pretend to be rigorous.

 

Many rebels without a cause rail against water as if a poisoned well is indicative of water, either oblivious or ignorant of the presence of the poison, which is in fact the nature of that which they are railing against, not the water.

[Josh F]

The free market is already providing a lot of useful alternatives to the traditional corporate hierarchy.  Distributed networks, sometimes of volunteers, are providing very valuable content these days.  Wikipedia or Reddit online.  Even decentralized work from home call centers, decentralized gaming with minecraft.  Even some gourmet farming is starting to move in this direction, like for marijuana or coffee or wine.  In the case of wine, many large companies are not farmers.  Small farmers sell product to larger producers, many of whom mix the wine.

 

These like mega companies, these huge huge oil providers.... is that really the result of the free market?  Without state sponsorship I wonder to what degree they would have been able to consolidate all the assets.  If you think of the gold rush, individuals and small groups did the brunt of the work setting things up, even if larger gold companies did own larger mines or buy large amounts of gold it would be hard to describe the gold market as this oligopoly (except where the government reserves are concerned).

 

I'm really thinking out loud here, but would a system without a regulated stock market even have CEOs or Boards of Directors when those functions aren't necessary to the business's success?  I wonder to what degree hierarchy can be and is being removed from business as well.

[PatrickC]

I'm feeling a very recent relief from the leftist perspective.. But after my guests have departed, I will certainly take a listen and give you my thoughts.

 

Chomsky is about the only leftist I can respect intellectually (despite his many contradictions), so it's still probably worth a listen.

[NotDarkYet]

Chomsky's view of economics is like a doctor's view of the human body if the doctor had only studied patients dying of lung cancer.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Chompsky said "they'll (corporations) have their own roads, they'll have their own armies."

 

Private roads? So? What is wrong with that? It just means will be paid for voluntarily by the users, instead of under threat of kidnapping by taxpayers - much less tyranny there for sure.

 

Private armies? I'll assume he is not merely referring to private security guards, since, they exist under our current system (banks, shopping malls, nightclubs etc.), and they pretty much only ever act to protect persons/property. They never act to extort, murder or steal, as do government security forces. So he must be referring to regular armies. So let me get this right; the people of a society gain some basic morals, reject the initiation of force, remove from power the most armed, wealthy and powerful organised crime gang ever to have existed, begin to bathe in the freedom an prosperity of a stateless society, and then, they just sit by and watch as another evil organization grows to power and returns them to a state of tyranny? I think not. War is not profitable, unless it is paid for by those not going to war, which would not be the case if a corporation was funding its own war.

[WorBlux]

Anyone interested in a serious discussion about the Chomsky videos and his scathing views of anarcho-capitalists?

 

 

Not really. He's brilliant in his analysis of foriegn policy and current events, but mises how the state as an instittuion is essentially corrupting.

[LifeIsBrief]

The problem is, he's right about a large chunk of right wing American libertarians. In fact, recently, even here on FDR, especially in the Peter Schiff guest spots the "I'm not a Republican, but..." nonsense has been really bothering me.  They aren't the lesser of two evils, they're religious zealots, and Wal Mart is their new Demi god.  If I had a dollar for every time I've heard "Corporations are a construction of the state", within 5 lines of a defense of McDonalds, I'd be able to start a nice health savings account.  In order for anarcho capitalism to work, and not turn into corporate fascism, people would have to stop shopping at corporations that treat people like livestock, otherwise you're demanding the government change, and outlaw or break them up... thus you're really a communist.  I say that with no ill will, unlike many here, I think hippie communes are cool, I'd just prefer a free market system, because governments never will change, they are violence incarnate.  Also, in my experience, what's popular, is almost never right.

 

What draws me to the ancap philosophy, is that it's the only one suggesting "We don't need psychopaths with guns to fix these problems". Thus, it is the only actual anarchist philosophy, which is not "opposition of government", as Noam defines it (which is where I stopped reading because it gave me a headache btw), but "no rulers".  In order to have no rulers, large groups of people cannot simply force other large groups of people to fall in line.  Anarchists can't simply become a majority, and win elections.  Anarchism, in my mind, is the philosophy of making yourself, as an individual, ungovernable.  The only way for an individual to be ungovernable, is to refuse to buy products from the governed, and refuse to take their money.  That's the slow, multi century revolution in my mind.  Every time I shop at Wal Mart, I am failing to live up to my own values.  Every time I buy a cell phone, anywhere, I am deciding to support a dictatorship, and encourage their exploitation of workers, rather than not have a cell phone.  I shop at Wal Mart, and buy a cell phone every few years, thus voting with my dollar "China's got it right".  Until people stop doing that, hopefully myself first, we're all going to be statists.

 

The problem with anarcho syndicalism, and communism, is that the few true believers who want a stateless society eventually, don't realize that until all individuals overcome the desire to shop at fascist corporations, you're going to be demanding the state force them to, through violence.  I don't want to force people to live my values...  That would be extremely hypocritical, because even I fail to live up to them at times.  I want human beings to have objectively better values, and hold themselves up to a higher moral standard, because I see that as the only way to eventually attain a peaceful society.  In a perfect world, the workers will eventually refuse to accept payment from the ruling class, or "capitalist class" as the communists improperly call it, because they've already got good things going on in their own life.  Billionaires will be paying millions, or trading artwork for loaves of bread, since everyone knows what they did to earn money (manipulated an entity of violence), and no one likes them, or has any desire to trade with them.

 

It's fun to dream...

[dsayers]

In order for anarcho capitalism to work, and not turn into corporate fascism, people would have to stop shopping at corporations that treat people like livestock

 

If this is how you feel and think others would feel, and everything these feelings are based on were true, you could open up shop competing with the offending companies, advertise that that's your only difference, and you could run them out of business or force them to change their ways to serve their customers better. Competition and consequence is what makes capitalism self-correcting.

 

The only way for an individual to be ungovernable, is to refuse to buy products from the governed, and refuse to take their money.

 

Was this a typo? I am governed, but it is not by choice. The governed are victims. Refusing to trade with somebody on the sole basis that they are a victim is revictimizing them.

[LifeIsBrief]

As to the first response... It's not a feeling, it's the truth.  If treating people like livestock, attracts more customers, because it's cheap... life for people will be awful under a capitalist society.  Customers need to constantly value labor more in their purchasing decisions, or the value of their own labor will decrease.  What communists tend to want, is very similar to what the average Republican wants... to have their cake and eat it too.  What the modern Republican party, and most (not all) of its associated "libertarians" want, is for the labor of "other" people, to stay cheap, while they continue to believe "I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake worth millions".  What did the Walton family invent?  Nothing, completely replaceable cogs in the statist machine. I'd be shocked if the people currently running Koch industries actually invented, or manufactured a new chemical.  These aren't "industrialists", and they're not valuable.

 

Also, if you don't believe this, you believe in fascism, not capitalism.  Every time you (or I, we all make mistakes), buy Nike shoes, you're voting with your dollar.  You want a government like the one in Nigeria, or some other poor African dictatorship.  Traditional Republicans, and some "capitalists", will tell you "No, we're helping them, trade is always good"... nonsense, almost all of that money goes straight to the warlords, and you're inherently devaluing not just the value of your own countries manual labor, but the worlds.  Capitalism without self respect, is a race to the bottom.  When you buy oil from Saudi Arabia, you're casting a vote for Islamic theocracy, and honor killings... period.

 

To the last point, as I suggest in my argument above, no it's not a typo.  Also, being governed is by choice, and there is no such thing as a victim.  This is another problem I have with "Republican libertarians"... They always talk about how poverty creates a "philosophy of victimization"... Then bitch about being victims of government.  You're not a victim.  The military could go on strike tomorrow.  People have chosen governance, it was and is, a terrible choice.  You could live outside the law right now, either through barter, or crime... you could join a commune, live on a reservation, wander into empty territory and homestead it, become Amish (they don't pay taxes for war, ss, or medicare, thus if they make less than 12k a year, they don't pay any taxes).  There are a whole bunch of choices you make, and one of them is to be governed.  If enough people stop choosing it, it will stop happening.  Once again however, this is a multi century process.  I haven't even fully achieved my goal of living on homesteaded land for less than 15 k a year yet, it's a long process, but it's a choice, you're not a victim.

[dsayers]

there is no such thing as a victim

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a victim? To have a victim, you need a violation of property rights. To have a violation of property rights, you need to have property rights. To say there is no such thing as a victim is to say that there is no such thing as property rights. However, I think that everything you're saying demonstrates that you accept property rights.

 

being governed is by choice

 

This is quite literally impossible. Government claim over you predates your existence. Escaping somebody's aggression towards you is not the same as choosing that the aggression not be present in the first place.

 

Tying these two points together to re-assert my initial claim: If you own yourself and a government claims ownership over you, you are being victimized by them. Even if you escape their claim (see above).

 

When I asked if you made a typo, the point I was trying to make is that: If a government claims to own you and claims to own me, and you and I voluntarily enter into a trade with one another, neither of us have engaged in an immoral act. Refusing to trade with somebody who is not immoral will actually work against the very point I think you're trying to make.

 

When you buy a cellphone, you're not propping up a totalitarian state, even if that is a secondary effect of your purchase. You're providing value to somebody who is providing value to you. You and I are currently using this technology to exchange these ideas and (hopefully) improve the world as a result. I think it's important to be able to differentiate between trading with the immoral and trading with the victims of the immoral just because their victimizers will indirectly profit off of your trade.

 

Oh, and you avoided the first point of my last post of competing altogether.

[LifeIsBrief]

I did not ignore your first point.  Capitalism cannot compete with fascism on price...  Fascism is cheaper.  Until there is an enormous moral awakening, it would be a waste of time and money to try to compete with entities given "free money", who trade with dictators.  Starting a moral business, won't suddenly surround you with moral customers.

 

Property rights exist.  "When a government claims ownership of you"... people claim all sorts of nonsense.  Most people claim magic sky gods are watching over them.  Victims exist in the past tense. When they kill you for asserting your claim to property rights, then you're a victim, until then you're making choices, and complaining, just like me.  As long as you're alive, you're the hero of your own story, not a victim.

 

Trade between nations, does not involve you freely choosing to pay a laborer to make you something in a poor country, it involves you bribing an official to threaten them.  When you buy a gallon of oil, almost none of it is freely traded to the people responsible for drilling it.  You can choose to ignore this, or call it "secondary", but it's a moral choice that you are making, and responsible for, just like every other individual.  So long as the vast majority of individuals want to abuse human beings for cheap crap, competing with that model, will cause you to simply lose your investment.

 

Capitalism doesn't fix problems, it's the non violent mechanism human beings can use to fix their own problems.  Currently, not many people are interested in working that hard...  Hopefully over the centuries that changes, but until then, you do what you can.  Personally I'm strongly leaning towards homesteading nowadays, but we'll see if even I have the fortitude for such an endeavor.  I really want to design solar concentrators and electric cycles, on a farm, but to start a business would involve supporting a bunch of the psychopaths claiming to own people, and.... no thanks.  Still that's a choice, I can contribute to an immoral system, or I can wander off and join the Amish, homestead in poverty, or become a criminal.  They're crappy choices.  It would be nicer if people were sane, and caring, but that's not really up to me.

 

I know... I'm all smiles and rainbows, just a genuine joy to discuss things with 

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=90OrQIpF60o

 

"Hope is irrational" Huey Freeman

"This is the most depressing fing kid, I have ever met in my life" Werner Herzog

[dsayers]

I did not ignore your first point.  Capitalism cannot compete with fascism on price...  Fascism is cheaper.  Until there is an enormous moral awakening, it would be a waste of time and money to try to compete with entities given "free money", who trade with dictators.  Starting a moral business, won't suddenly surround you with moral customers.

 

Price isn't the only consideration when spending stored value. Even today, people voluntarily pay more for various reasons, including what you're talking about.

 

Victims exist in the past tense. When they kill you for asserting your claim to property rights, then you're a victim, until then you're making choices, and complaining, just like me.

 

I made the case that victims exist, they are a violation of property rights, which threats of violence are, meaning the choice between escaping aggression or not is not a choice because a reasonable person would choose there not be aggression towards him. The only thing you've done to acknowledge any of that is to move from, "there is no such thing as a victim," to, [victims only exist in regards to murder]. But the cases I've made aren't at all challenged by this. In fact, it substantiates it because if "victim" requires a violation of property rights, you cannot say that one could be a victim of murder, but not theft, assault, or rape. And if somebody could be a victim of these, then they would be a victim of threats of these since that too is a violation of property rights.

 

I know... I'm all smiles and rainbows, just a genuine joy to discuss things with 

 

I'm trying to help by showing you that you can trade with the governed and not actually be contributing to any problem in the act of trading itself.

[Mishelle]

Additionally, tyranny requires two things to thrive: Lack of competition and lack of consequence. These would not be present in anything that could be described as capitalistic.

 

Very helpful, thank you!

 

 

Chompsky said "they'll (corporations) have their own roads, they'll have their own armies."Private armies? 

 

I think not. War is not profitable, unless it is paid for by those not going to war, which would not be the case if a corporation was funding its own war.

 

I'd love to hear more on this, because I've heard this argument before from others.  As an example they use East India Company, saying it actually BECAME the government once they'd gotten the mercenaries and weapons they needed.  I realize they got these thanks to the government initially, but then "went rogue" or so the history books want us to believe.  Still, with weapons all over the place that can be used remotely even, is war really that expensive anymore?

 

Working my way through the rest of the posts, but here's what I'm wondering for now.  Thanks for any more insights!

[cynicist]

Still, with weapons all over the place that can be used remotely even, is war really that expensive anymore?

 

Technology (drones) has made it cheaper but it will always be expensive due to the inherent corruption involved in using other people's money to fund it. Few people care about the cost when they don't have to pay. Also, the purpose of war is destruction so it can't ever be wealth generating, though it is certainly profitable for some individuals. The broken window fallacy illustrates that well.

 

 

I'd be very interested in learning how to logically, with a calm passion instead of snarky irritation, address his points.  Can anyone help me out with this?

 

Are you more interested in rebuttals to Chomsky's arguments, or the ones in that FAQ? Because dear god that FAQ was irritating to read. The number logical errors is making my head spin; I think I could probably spend triple the number of words simply pointing them out line by line...

 

Meanwhile I'll check out the videos and see if Noam's (does anyone call him by his first name?) arguments are any better. I haven't read any of his material, I only know who he is based on his reputation as an Anarcho-syndicalist.

 

Edit: Hmm ok that was interesting. He describes capitalism as "private tyranny" and thinks the state is held captive by private interests. He compares the relationship between a corporation and a worker to a ruler and his subject, saying:

 

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous)  ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke...

 

His thoughts on Libertarianism:

 

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something.

 

I've watched around 10 videos so far and I haven't seen any arguments against Anarcho-capitalism, just the corrupt relationship between corporations and the state. He rails against tariffs and treaties like NAFTA, but blames capitalist interference in government for the problems. He is a skilled linguist but I get bored listening to him because he makes lots of assertions and uses vague language to do so (like "private power" or "top down system of power"). If anyone can find any actual arguments from him at this point I would be impressed.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Very helpful, thank you!   I'd love to hear more on this, because I've heard this argument before from others.  As an example they use East India Company, saying it actually BECAME the government once they'd gotten the mercenaries and weapons they needed.  I realize they got these thanks to the government initially, but then "went rogue" or so the history books want us to believe.  Still, with weapons all over the place that can be used remotely even, is war really that expensive anymore? Working my way through the rest of the posts, but here's what I'm wondering for now.  Thanks for any more insights!

I'm no expert on the East India Trading Company, so I better not tread there. In a free society, I struggle to see why a corporation would raise an army and start a war, unless they are hellbent on forming another government. I suppose that is possible, but the shareholders have far more to lose than they would likely gain. If the shareholders can afford to raise an army they must already be really, really rich. Doing so risks their wealth and their lives. Surely whomever they are going to war with would defend themselves by raising their own army, and would likely have the support of the rest of the population. I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would result in this scenario.Can you provide a thought experiment on how you think it could come about?

[LifeIsBrief]

I think we may not agree on the definition of "victim".  To me, victim is a title people clothe themselves in to avoid responsibility.  "They stole my taxes"... "Well, did you work in a legitimate business?"... Okay, you chose to pay tax.  Do I recommend going on a crime spree?  Of course not, but it is an option.  I worry that many "capitalists", think that the world owes them, not being threatened, simply because they were born.  Just like you don't owe the world anything, the world does not owe you anything.  People will threaten you, they have always threatened one another.  Some people are dicks... That's life. 

 

You're not a victim, you're the hero of a story, that you are the author of.  Some people do less with it, than others.  Semantics really... Was it wrong for someone to rape, steal from, or jail you?  Yes, but it does not change who you are as a person.  You always have the ability to fight, until consciousness escapes your body.  If you choose to fight, paying people who choose to submit, does not further the cause. It's a bad idea, and one with moral consequences.  Do 99.9 % of people submit?  Of course, but it doesn't make it objectively right, just a good excuse.  Excuses are the reason we're looking at a multi century time frame, rather than a couple years of unrest

[greekredemption]

Is there not an argument to be had that the libertarian account of 'liberty' is too narrow or is otherwise not comprehensive enough?

[dsayers]

 

To me, victim is a title people clothe themselves in to avoid responsibility.

 

Up above, you said:

 

people claim all sorts of nonsense

 

You were making the point that claiming something doesn't make it so. Therefore, people claiming victim do not have the power to alter the definition of victim. Additionally, you had said:

 

When they kill you for asserting your claim to property rights, then you're a victim

 

Dead people aren't even capable of making claims. I submit that this entire tangent on the subject of "victim" has been prolonged by your bias on what you feel the connotation of "victim" is. However, I was speaking of its denotation and even made an effort to outline the definition. I hope you will re-examine your position in light of this discovery.

 

you chose to pay tax

 

This quote is like saying the woman with a short skirt on chose to be raped. Pretty wretched. I've spent a lot of time in this thread pointing out the way aggression removes choice by its very nature. Taxation is theft. Nobody choose to be stolen from because if it were consensual, it would not be called theft. People who pay taxes are not choosing to be stolen from, they're choosing to avoid the "or else" part of the coercive commandment backed by force of, "pay taxes, or else _____." "Let us steal from you or let us steal from you more, and rape, and kill you." That's not a choice at all.

 

I worry that many "capitalists", think that the world owes them, not being threatened, simply because they were born.

 

"I own myself and the effects of my actions," isn't the same as, "I'm owed not being threatened." Understanding that your body, time, and effort are your capital only serves to interpret such threats as unjust and immoral.

 

Was it wrong for someone to rape, steal from, or jail you?  Yes, but it does not change who you are as a person.

 

I've never heard of a rape victim that wasn't changed by the experience. This is also pretty wretched.

 

This exchange started off as enjoyable and challenging. However, you don't appear to have altered your position or revealed a flaw in mine. In fact, you're beginning to move goal posts and express some pretty inaccurate prejudices. Did you engage in this exchange in pursuit of the truth?

[LifeIsBrief]

Did you engage in this exchange in the pursuit of truth?  Because, there's lots of healthy disagreement in what I wrote, that you're simply ignoring, so you can focus on what a word means.  The discussion of victimization started this... not victims.  I said

 

"This is another problem I have with "Republican Libertarians".  They always talk about how poverty creates a culture of victimization... then bitch about being the victims of government.  You are not a victim."

 

There are two different ways of using the word victim.  One is "A crime happened to me"... One is "this is my title, I am a victim", ie victimization.  I was talking about how if "poverty creates a culture of victimization"...   It can successfully be argued on the same terms, that "Republican Libertarianism", creates a "culture of victimization by government".  So, I may have used the word victim improperly once or twice, but I did so in a way that you are familiar with.  My argument is that, you are not part of a culture of victimization.  You have not been wronged, you have been born into the same messed up animalistic, violent, and competitive world as everyone else.  Does it suck?  Yes... but to compare being born with a government, to being raped, is crazy.  Are government and rapists both immoral?  Yes, but there are degrees.  Also, taxes are avoidable, you can just live in poverty, and join the Amish... A shitty option admittedly, but it exists.

 

This is what I am talking about, when I say you are not a victim.  Just being born, in the same situation as every human being in the last 5 thousand years has been born, does not give you the right, to wear the mantle of "rape victim", or compare yourself to one, as if it's all the same.  Having been raped, makes you "the victim of an aggressive act"... Saying "I'm a victim", is a title, or victimization.  I don't recommend, that anyone ever think of themselves as a victim.

 

If you act as though you have property rights, and a government official beats or murders you...  You have become the victim of a crime.  Until then, you haven't been raped, and you're just complaining.  Threats of violence, and violence, are not equal... Why?  Capacity.  If large groups of people forced the government to make good on its perverse threats, there would no longer be a government.  Until then, we're cowards, giving in to threats... I recommend not negotiating with terrorists.

 

Edit:  In essence... Prove that nonsense being spewed by violent morons, or "threats", are a violation of your property rights.  Every living chimpanzee in history, is constantly being threatened by bigger stronger animals, or larger groups.  Stand up to them, and see what happens, that's called courage.  If all human beings did this... Threats would stop working.  Strike!... Atlas Shrugged style, or else you're just complaining 

 

PS... Complaining is awesome, and all governments are horrible... but complaining is not the same as defying, and being assaulted.  When you defy and are assaulted... that's courageous, and you are now the victim of a crime.  Courageous people however, rarely say "I'm a victim".  They say things like "Give me liberty, or give me death"

[PatrickC]

The 'Left' dominates contemporary politics.. The 'Right' are mostly stooges to prop up the fallacy that the 'Left' have no power.. It's quite brilliant how the 'Left' have twisted the propaganda.

[Mishelle]

Still reading the posts and listening to some Stef-casts on the topic of corporations in particular.

 

This struck me from cynicist, thank you:

 

"' watched around 10 videos so far and I haven't seen any arguments against Anarcho-capitalism, just the corrupt relationship between corporations and the state. He rails against tariffs and treaties like NAFTA, but blames capitalist interference in government for the problems. He is a skilled linguist but I get bored listening to him because he makes lots of assertions and uses vague language to do so (like "private power" or "top down system of power"). If anyone can find any actual arguments from him at this point I would be impressed."

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder about the actual arguments, because that's why I said "shaming and finger-wagging" before and thought maybe that's just my impression because, ya know, old age and all can make people that way and sometimes that's all I can see, while some good point might be missed since I'm reacting to the 'tude  -- hehe

He does say rather often "it's not worth even discussing" -- like he's the grand PooBa of all things worthy of thought!

 

Still reading and appreciating all the comments, back soon.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Did you engage in this exchange in the pursuit of truth?  Because, there's lots of healthy disagreement in what I wrote, that you're simply ignoring, so you can focus on what a word means.  The discussion of victimization started this... not victims.  I said

 

"This is another problem I have with "Republican Libertarians".  They always talk about how poverty creates a culture of victimization... then bitch about being the victims of government.  You are not a victim."

 

There are two different ways of using the word victim.  One is "A crime happened to me"... One is "this is my title, I am a victim", ie victimization.  I was talking about how if "poverty creates a culture of victimization"...   It can successfully be argued on the same terms, that "Republican Libertarianism", creates a "culture of victimization by government".  So, I may have used the word victim improperly once or twice, but I did so in a way that you are familiar with.  My argument is that, you are not part of a culture of victimization.  You have not been wronged, you have been born into the same messed up animalistic, violent, and competitive world as everyone else.  Does it suck?  Yes... but to compare being born with a government, to being raped, is crazy.  Are government and rapists both immoral?  Yes, but there are degrees.  Also, taxes are avoidable, you can just live in poverty, and join the Amish... A shitty option admittedly, but it exists.

 

This is what I am talking about, when I say you are not a victim.  Just being born, in the same situation as every human being in the last 5 thousand years has been born, does not give you the right, to wear the mantle of "rape victim", or compare yourself to one, as if it's all the same.  Having been raped, makes you "the victim of an aggressive act"... Saying "I'm a victim", is a title, or victimization.  I don't recommend, that anyone ever think of themselves as a victim.

 

If you act as though you have property rights, and a government official beats or murders you...  You have become the victim of a crime.  Until then, you haven't been raped, and you're just complaining.  Threats of violence, and violence, are not equal... Why?  Capacity.  If large groups of people forced the government to make good on its perverse threats, there would no longer be a government.  Until then, we're cowards, giving in to threats... I recommend not negotiating with terrorists.

 

Edit:  In essence... Prove that nonsense being spewed by violent morons, or "threats", are a violation of your property rights.  Every living chimpanzee in history, is constantly being threatened by bigger stronger animals, or larger groups.  Stand up to them, and see what happens, that's called courage.  If all human beings did this... Threats would stop working.  Strike!... Atlas Shrugged style, or else you're just complaining 

 

PS... Complaining is awesome, and all governments are horrible... but complaining is not the same as defying, and being assaulted.  When you defy and are assaulted... that's courageous, and you are now the victim of a crime.  Courageous people however, rarely say "I'm a victim".  They say things like "Give me liberty, or give me death"

We have been wronged. We have not been born into the same world as everyone else because rulers have extra rights to use force and they have done so throughout our existence. It is wrong to use force this way. Therefore we have been wronged.

Being born under a government is or can be just as bad as rape and you're exclamations of of incredulity do not refute any arguments. Just as a rapist claims the right to forcibly use a person for sex, a government ruler claims the right to use your body to extract wealth. It's not "crazy". It's a fact.

Taxes are not avoidable. Even if you make every effort to avoid them the effects are inescapable. The very fact you HAVE to avoid them is part of their inescapable nature. I pretty sure the Amish don't escape them. We are rape victims in a sense because the moral violations are all part of the same continuum.  They are all violations of property and a threat is also a violation of property.

Government HAS the capacity to carry out it's threats or at the very least it appears to (I do not wish to test that on my own). The government has the support of most people who are mostly ignorant of any valid alternative other than force. You don't know that if large groups of people forced the government to make good on it's threats there'd be no government. You are talking out of your ass. 

Coward is a subjective word but your notion of someone not taking on the most powerful and brutal institution in history (one that has brain-washed most of it's citizens) as being a coward is outside the norm. You just chastised people for exaggeration (putting rape on the same level as other things) yet you are calling people cowards for not "standing up" to government. Uuuum...Fuck you? 

[dsayers]

Trade between nations, does not involve you freely choosing to pay a laborer to make you something in a poor country

 

That's right. Your involvement is trading freely with somebody, who traded freely with somebody... The coercion is many steps removed. You could argue that it's demand driven, but demand exists ahead of and independently of the methodology.

 

The very fact you HAVE to avoid them is part of their inescapable nature.

 

Thanks for this. This is what I was trying to say. That you cannot actually escape the aggression because even if mechanically it appears that you have, the act took place because of the aggression.

[GRosado]

I'd love to hear more on this, because I've heard this argument before from others. As an example they use East India Company, saying it actually BECAME the government once they'd gotten the mercenaries and weapons they needed. I realize they got these thanks to the government initially, but then "went rogue" or so the history books want us to believe. Still, with weapons all over the place that can be used remotely even, is war really that expensive anymore?

Which East India Company are you talking about? Dutch, British French, Portuguese?

[LifeIsBrief]

I had a few beers last night before "True Detective", and "The Walking Dead", so I was in a bit of a "I'm gon' talk bout' freedom", mood.  I apologize for the bloviating.  Still... When you say every human being born in the last 5,000 years, is a victim... it makes the word victim meaningless.  Comparing that to an actual rape victim who had aggressive force used on them, on top of having a government like everyone else, shows no sense of scope or degree. There are thousands of easy ways to avoid taxes.  Just being poor, is number one... you can actually leech off the system if you're poor.  I think that is immoral as well, but people leeching off the system, aren't being stolen from, or "raped".

 

The other important point, is, this is about "Republican libertarians", not anarchists.  "Republican libertarians", are fighting tooth and nail, to get the job of stealing your money... So, when they claim to be victims of taxation, they're acting like evil, violent, psychopaths.  The people who fund these candidates, like the Koch brothers, constantly claim to be victims of taxation as well.  They pay lower tax rates than their employees, thus the system is actually designed to hinder their competition, and enhance their power.  Writing tax laws that benefit corporations, does not make you the victim of those laws designed to enhance your corporation.  "Libertarians", who want to run for office, or got wealthy in protected industries, are speaking double speak, period.

 

I am not "talking out of my ass", when I talk about large groups of people refusing to submit to taxation destroying government either... I'm talking about the American Revolution.  If a large enough percent of the population, refused to submit, they would no longer have to.  The "rational" response, to being threatened with violence, is shooting the madman in the face... Not submitting to his demands.  Most people are certainly not willing to go that far, and currently I would not recommend it, but it is cowardice.  The way to overcome it, is courage, and self reliance.  Unfortunately, it seems like it will take centuries or a collapse, for that confidence to return, but it has been proven to exist in human beings before, and it will again.  No nation has the capacity to put down a strike, or revolt, when the military or police are participants.  It's possible for the war against evil to be won... It's just going to take some time.  Until then, ask any psychologist, if you permanently label yourself, and become a "victim"... the rapist wins.

 

Peace and love friends.

[Mike Fleming]

I heard a video from awhile back where someone asked Chomsky about the Fed and money-printing and such and he basically just regurgitated the government line on that we need the Fed to help stimulate the economy.  It really was almost parrotted straight from what we hear on the mainstream news.  The general impression I had was that he had no idea but didn't want to seem clueless on the subject.  He probably would have been better off saying it was something about which he didn't have enough knowledge to comment though.

 

Chomsky is obviously extremely intelligent, but my general impression is that he has little patience for, and little knowledge of economics.  Being smart doesn't mean you are an expert on everything.

 

It's probably also to do with the fact that mainstream economics is largely nonsense and mostly just an excuse for state interference in the economy.   He probably never came across the Austrians or probably sees them as a right-wing Republican Tea Party thing and disregards them on that basis.

 

Just speculating....

[dsayers]

When you say every human being born in the last 5,000 years, is a victim... it makes the word victim meaningless.

 

You're not talking about natural forces though. "I can't jump 10 feet in the air. *pout*" "We're all under gravity; what are you going to do?" You're suggesting that the definition of victim (how can this keep moving for you?) requires comparative rarity. All you need to be a victim is a violation of property rights, which being born under a governmental claim subjects you to.

 

There are thousands of easy ways to avoid taxes.

 

It keeps being pointed out to you that you can't avoid aggression. If you just keep asserting it repeatedly, I for one will assume you're not interested in the truth. If you are, then at the very least address the rebuttal. I thought of an analogy for you:

 

Let us say that I throw a punch at you. You dodge, avoiding the punch. But you're not avoiding having been swung on. You didn't choose to jerk back suddenly, you were a slave to a situation you did not choose. Your "choice" was the lesser of unchosen options in the moment. Just as somebody who "avoids taxes" as you describe it is choosing the lesser of unchosen options. Their "choice" is the direct result of taxation

[LifeIsBrief]

So... Everyone's a victim... and that doesn't make the word meaningless... I understand.  I'm sorry that you're a Chimpanzee, and aggression is exactly like gravity.  Cry into your hanky some more, that will help.  How dare I suggest you defy authority?  That's not an anarchists job... You deserve to be born in a world where authority already gave up, because you're a beautiful and unique snowflake.  I get it.

 

You're cherry picking way too much here.  Saying "Do this, fill out some forms, or I'll throw a punch at you", is not the same as throwing a punch.  If everyone's a victim, it doesn't need a word... we already have one, human.

 

Edit:  I just want to add... I didn't give negative feedback to the guy who insinuated that I was pro rape.  If you down voted my opinion because I said "Cry into your hanky", but didn't down vote the pro rape nonsense... You have a very strange sense of fair play, and rational discourse. 

 

PS.  Taxation is theft... but it's not rape.  Stop talking about how bad you have it.  No one has ever been raped and thought "This is an awful lot like being born, and having a government".  Get over yourself.  Fight the system, don't just complain about it, contribute to it, and then complain about being raped... That's insane.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Is there not an argument to be had that the libertarian account of 'liberty' is too narrow or is otherwise not comprehensive enough?

If you have an argument as such, please post it, thats what this forum is for.

[dsayers]

 

So... Everyone's a victim... and that doesn't make the word meaningless... I understand.  I'm sorry that you're a Chimpanzee, and aggression is exactly like gravity.  Cry into your hanky some more, that will help.  How dare I suggest you defy authority?  That's not an anarchists job... You deserve to be born in a world where authority already gave up, because you're a beautiful and unique snowflake.  I get it.

 

You're cherry picking way too much here.  Saying "Do this, fill out some forms, or I'll throw a punch at you", is not the same as throwing a punch.  If everyone's a victim, it doesn't need a word... we already have one, human.

 

Thank you for the outburst. I prefer the honesty over the pretense of a conversation.

 

You didn't suggest defying authority, you suggested not trading with people simply because they're victims. Is it okay that I disagree for reasons I have rationally explained?

 

I'm sorry that you're a Chimpanzee, and aggression is exactly like gravity.

 

In the context of your outburst, I cannot tell if you're trying to assert that aggression is like gravity or mocking what you perceive to be me making such an assertion. Either way, the first sentence of my last post is that we're NOT talking about natural forces. This is very important to understand.

 

The moment you blame the victim, punish the victim, or pretend they're not the victim, you're protecting and empowering their abuser and painting over their abuser's evil with the pretense of normalcy or worse. What's the point of recognizing that everybody is born into victimhood at the hands of the State? So that we're extremely clear as to the nature of our relationship to the State.

[greekredemption]

If you have an argument as such, please post it, thats what this forum is for.

It's just a thought. If we can consider governmental actions - characterised variously as civil oppression or just normal governance - as infringing on the liberty of persons, can we not also apply this to other persons or grous of power that superficially appear voluntary or otherwise legitimate? Is physical force the only means by which liberty can be infringed?

 

I mean, consider the libertarian position on these two scenarios. In one is a middle-class first world white guy who's losing 30% of his annual pay to taxes. This is considered theft and is an automatic infringement of liberty. In the other is a peasant in some godforsaken part of the world who has no choice - unless he should choose to die - but to work for virtually nothing for a large corporation that has perfectly legally bought up all nearby land and is exploiting (in a literal sense) the natural resources; this scenario does not imply any infringement of liberty whatsoever. The peasant is merely unlucky.

 

Is it then entirely unreasonable to consider structural coercion an infringement of liberty? Of course the peasant hasn't experienced any direct physical coercion from the corporation, but his lack of choices that might otherwise be available to him may, it seems to me, be construed as an infringement of liberty in a similar way to the first world 'oh noes, I'm getting £23k p/a instead of £32k p/a' guy. 

 

Three things:

• I see a lot of merit in the Georgist view of natural resources in resolving this apparent disparity. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
• Let's not confuse what is right with what is good (i.e. you may say the peasant is benefiting from having a job, but that does not mean his situation is just).
• This also has nothing to say of obligation.

[Daniel Unplugged]

It's just a thought. If we can consider governmental actions - characterised variously as civil oppression or just normal governance - as infringing on the liberty of persons, can we not also apply this to other persons or grous of power that superficially appear voluntary or otherwise legitimate? Is physical force the only means by which liberty can be infringed?

No, the threat of force is enough. I pay taxes even though the state has not directly used force against me. Remember, it is the non agression principal. A threat of force is an aggressive action.

[greekredemption]

No, the threat of force is enough. I pay taxes even though the state has not directly used force against me. Remember, it is the non agression principal. A threat of force is an aggressive action.

I count a credible threat and force to be the same thing.

[Daniel Unplugged]

I mean, consider the libertarian position on these two scenarios. In one is a middle-class first world white guy who's losing 30% of his annual pay to taxes. This is considered theft and is an automatic infringement of liberty. In the other is a peasant in some godforsaken part of the world who has no choice - unless he should choose to die - but to work for virtually nothing for a large corporation that has perfectly legally bought up all nearby land and is exploiting (in a literal sense) the natural resources; this scenario does not imply any infringement of liberty whatsoever. The peasant is merely unlucky.

A couple of things to point out first. As far as moral principles are concerned, the race of the people in question is irrelevant, as is the fact that one of them is relatively poor, and the other is relatively rich. Can you please define what you mean by exploiting? Are you referring to the peasant as a natural resource? No cynicism intended, I just want to confirm what you meant. Even a peasant, usually, owns the land he works. Why would he sell the land he depends on for his livelihood to the corporation? Even if the corporation does own all the nearby land, and this also applies to small mining towns (where there is only 1employer in a large geographical area) as well, there is no initiation of force. The peasant is not forced to work for the corporation. The peasant may leave anytime he sees fit. People, rich and poor alike, move location, often to far away lands, to find better employment opportunities. Nothing new about that. If the peasant believes that the job the corporation offers him is the best offer he can get, he stays, otherwise, he leaves. Obviously there are other factors he would consider as well, like the location of his family and friends. Either way, there is still no initiation of force.

 

Note that the example you give, where the peasant must work for the corporation or die, doesn't actually exist anywhere in the world qnd is a very hypothetical scenario that would be unlikely ever to occur in a free society. It does however, happen in communist states, but they are the exact opposite of free societies.

I count a credible threat and force to be the same thing.

So do I, as far as principles are concerned anyway.

 

Is it then entirely unreasonable to consider structural coercion an infringement of liberty? Of course the peasant hasn't experienced any direct physical coercion from the corporation, but his lack of choices that might otherwise be available to him may, it seems to me, be construed as an infringement of liberty in a similar way to the first world 'oh noes, I'm getting £23k p/a instead of £32k p/a' guy. 

 

Three things:

 

[*]I see a lot of merit in the Georgist view of natural resources in resolving this apparent disparity. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

[*]Let's not confuse what is right with what is good (i.e. you may say the peasant is benefiting from having a job, but that does not mean his situation is just).

[*]This also has nothing to say of obligation.

Again, why can't the peasant leave? The structural coercion you mention, sounds a lot like Peter Joseph's structural violence. There is no coercion or violence in either, unless of course, the peasant is prevented from leaving by the corporation.

 

I consider, that voluntary interactions, however repulsive I find them personally, cannot be unjust. I do not judge others for their voluntary interactions. Their freedom (as well as mine) to live their lives as they see fit, is of absolute importance to me. Everything else is secondary.