Is "Libertarian" a Contradiction?

[In_The_Gray]

 

Corporations are fictitious legal shields created by the state. You're saying this occurs in government and government alike.

 

 

Apologies, I meant to say "companies" instead of corporations. It occurs in private companies and governments alike.

 

 

 

Nothing you said here refutes my point that there is nothing evil about the voluntary exchange of value. You say agree to disagree to avoid addressing this point. You've instead just redressed it for the purpose of pulling on heart strings. Appeals to emotions are not the same as an argument. Nor have you defined what "adequate living conditions" or "livable wage" means, explained why somebody having a family they cannot afford to is a 3rd party's responsibility, or how "can afford" equates to "must pay."

 

Pulling at the heart strings is exactly the point. People are suffering. Some people care, some people don't care. The ones that promote the suffering of others by paying them inadequately even though they can easily afford to pay more is what I'm referring to as evil.

 

A liveable wage is an amount of money earned that allows the earner to afford healthy meals and a private, safe, warm shelter, in addition to being able to cover any other necessary costs that apply to the average person in that location.

And I'm not saying the company "must pay" more just because that company has enough money to do so. I'm saying that if they choose to pay a less-than-adequate amount then they are morally wrong or "evil" to some extent. These are examples of how even a company can be "evil", just like the government can be.

[dsayers]

@cab21: You spoke as if rape's morality is subjective. When I pointed out that it is not, you just started talking about something else. I won't waste my time.

 

@gray: You are also willing to move the goalposts, which is a waste of my time. I specifically said coercive squelching and you're trying to talk about companies that do not use coercion. Rape and love making are mechanically identical. The coercion makes all the difference in the world.

 

As for all the heart string pulling, you're talking about the specifics of the voluntary exchange of value that you're not party to. Which you can have your opinion about. But you're speaking as if you're making truth claims, which isn't the case. If somebody wants to earn more, they can offer more value to others. If this is how you really feel, why aren't you bidding up their wages? Otherwise, you're only talking about telling others how to live their lives, which is more evil than people who do things voluntarily that you don't agree with.

[In_The_Gray]

@gray: You are also willing to move the goalposts, which is a waste of my time. I specifically said coercive squelching and you're trying to talk about companies that do not use coercion. Rape and love making are mechanically identical. The coercion makes all the difference in the world.

You speak of coercion as something exclusive to government power, but I don't think that is entirely true.

The assumption is that it is my choice whether or not I support a company and that they can't forcibly sway my decision. I don't believe this assumption to be true.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a wealthy individual or company buys all the land in my area and drives up costs of the surrounding areas, do I really have a choice whether or not I'm able to use that land? I have the choice to trespass on their property and risk being punished. I have the choice of paying them to have the right to use it myself. And I have the choice to purchase a vehicle, pack up my belongings, and travel a far enough distance to escape the company's reach, assuming they haven't spread out across the entire country (which is technically possible). Based on these choices, I wouldn't refer to this as freedom.

 

To reiterate my ongoing point, I I00% agree that the government is the worst, most repressive form of power that we face today in our society. My argument is that financial power also has the potential to be coercive, specifically due to the fact that wealthy people are able to secure the necessities of life (land/food, shelter, transportation) and prevent others from accessing it if they choose not to cooperate (i.e pay for it), thus forcing us to work for them to be able to afford their necessary services.

 

If somebody wants to earn more, they can offer more value to others. If this is how you really feel, why aren't you bidding up their wages? Otherwise, you're only talking about telling others how to live their lives, which is more evil than people who do things voluntarily that you don't agree with.

If I were rich and powerful I would be able to bid up their wages. If I am a commoner and there is a monopoly in that sector (due to extremely successful and strategic businessmen) then I have no hope of bidding up the wages of thousands of people. That is unrealistic and is exactly why monopolies are dangerous.

[cab21]

 @cab21: You spoke as if rape's morality is subjective. When I pointed out that it is not, you just started talking about something else. I won't waste my time.

 

i pointed out that the morality of government is just as objective as the morality of rape.

 

i spoke as if anarchy in rape as subjective

each court has its own rules on rape

each court has it's own law.

 

a government would have objective rules on how rape is tried in court

[dsayers]

No, you said:

 

should the response to rape be subjective or objective, since the immorality of rape is objective?

is a subjective response from competition of how people respond better than a objective response following objective procedures?

 

...with no pause to address the fact that you had just got done speaking as if the morality of rape is up to us. And your initial input in this thread was to say that government is not akin to slavery. This is not at all to say that the immorality of government is objective, which was never disputed in the first place.

 

Are you not aware that the transcript of this exchange is all right here?

 

 

You speak of coercion as something exclusive to government power

 

No I'm not. This is the 2nd time today you've claimed I was saying something I was saying. Set aside the prejudice long enough to have a conversation with me or don't pretend to have a conversation with me. Does that seem fair to you?

 

You're pointing to the effects of coercion and calling it the effects of the free market. This is incredibly dangerous since people see things like that and prescribe more violence as the solution. If you're so worried about monopolies and the rich using their wealth to exploit people, focus on the State coercion that protects evil doers even when they make decisions that would rightfully sink them in a free market.

[cab21]

 

 

...with no pause to address the fact that you had just got done speaking as if the morality of rape is up to us. And your initial input in this thread was to say that government is not akin to slavery. This is not at all to say that the immorality of government is objective, which was never disputed in the first place.

 

Are you not aware that the transcript of this exchange is all right here?

 

 

the morality of rape is up to principles

 

take the non aggression princiciple

rape breaks the prinicple

the government system proposed does not.

 

if people don't want to be part of the government , they don't have to, but they still don't get away with breaking the nonaggression principle just because they choose not to be part of the government.

 

the role of government is not to break the non initiation of aggression principle, but to have objective procedures and laws in place when people do break the principle

 

i am aware on the transcript, and i can clarify what i meant if asked.

[dsayers]

if people don't want to be part of the government , they don't have to

 

Then it's not government. Words have meanings.

 

the morality of rape is up to principles

 

No it isn't. You're typing, so clearly you accept that you own yourself. Which means I own me, which means for either of us to exercise ownership over the other without consent is immoral. So I say one last time: Morality is not subjective. Just as with passing government off as voluntary, the moment you're talking about something that is subjective, it cannot be morality.

[cab21]

Then it's not government. Words have meanings.

 

then say it's objective that for certain moral goals, humans need government.

 

objective law, requires everyone be a part of it, because otherwise subjective whim rules over objective law.

a certain piece of land cannot have competing claims for ownership, where each claim is correct. that is a contradiction 

 

No it isn't. You're typing, so clearly you accept that you own yourself. Which means I own me, which means for either of us to exercise ownership over the other without consent is immoral. So I say one last time: Morality is not subjective. Just as with passing government off as voluntary, the moment you're talking about something that is subjective, it cannot be morality.

 

 

self ownership is a principle

i dont think government claims ownership over other people

people working together to protect their own self ownership.

 

if someone does not subscribe, the person will only be dealt with if the person violates the self ownership of someone who is part of the government.

 

government talks about a geographic area, the geographic area of land owned by the voluntary participant of that government.

 

i might need to say funtion instead of government if people are defining government in a way where it's a contradiction by definition.

[dsayers]

then say it's objective that for certain moral goals, humans need government.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things that violence can provide that voluntary action cannot. You do not need government for these things, though you will get them with a government.

 

objective law, requires everyone be a part of it

 

Not true. Gravity doesn't require us to be part of it. It is simply binding upon everything within its sphere of influence. This is why it's called a law. What you're talking about isn't law and because it was man made, it is subjective (who says it's illegal to possess something?). Unless the RULE is do not violate the property rights of others (theft, assault, rape, and murder). This is a truism of the capacity for reason (moral actor), not because some edict happened to declare it also.

 

i dont think government claims ownership over other people

 

This is because your use of the word "government" is fictitious. Government in the descriptive (is) is a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force within a geographical area. There is no government in the normative (ought) because property rights preempt its legitimacy. What you're talking about is voluntary interaction, which is great, but it's not government.

 

Is there a reason why the phrases dispute resolution organization, insurance company, and private protection agency bother you? Is there a reason why you NEED government to be legitimate so badly that you're willing to go through such verbal contortions to try and force its legitimacy? At least when statists go to these lengths, its because they believe violence is necessary.

[cab21]

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things that violence can provide that voluntary action cannot. You do not need government for these things, though you will get them with a government.

 

these will happen with or without a government.

so the matter is how to deal with them.

 

a government would not legitimately do any of those things.

non government would not legitimatly do any of those things either. 

 

Not true. Gravity doesn't require us to be part of it. It is simply binding upon everything within its sphere of influence. This is why it's called a law. What you're talking about isn't law and because it was man made, it is subjective (who says it's illegal to possess something?). Unless the RULE is do not violate the property rights of others (theft, assault, rape, and murder). This is a truism of the capacity for reason (moral actor), not because some edict happened to declare it also.

the rule is do not violate property rights of others.

so the government would follow that moral reason.

 

This is because your use of the word "government" is fictitious. Government in the descriptive (is) is a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force within a geographical area. There is no government in the normative (ought) because property rights preempt its legitimacy. What you're talking about is voluntary interaction, which is great, but it's not government.

 

Is there a reason why the phrases dispute resolution organization, insurance company, and private protection agency bother you? Is there a reason why you NEED government to be legitimate so badly that you're willing to go through such verbal contortions to try and force its legitimacy? At least when statists go to these lengths, its because they believe violence is necessary.

 

government does not have the right to initiate force, it has the right to respond to the initiation of force.

government is the institution people rational pick to defend property rights the people already have.

this was what minarchists philosophy was calling for, we don't have anarcho capitalism either

 

are the dro's competing for different justice procedures?

dro one captures and sets a trial in front of 1 judge

dro two gets a warrent, then captures, then has a trial by jury among other constitutional procedures.

 

dro two costs more, takes longer, has more requirements

but which one is more just?

 

or there is dro 3 do nothing

dro three is cheapest and least violent on part of no self defence at all.

[dsayers]

government does not have the right to initiate force

 

How many times will I have to go down this path before I learn to trust my instincts and not feed the trolls, to not dignify those who would move goalposts? I am so very ashamed right now.

[cab21]

 How many times will I have to go down this path before I learn to trust my instincts and not feed the trolls, to not dignify those who would move goalposts? I am so very ashamed right now.

 

so using your terms

government is a libertarian contradiction by definition, so why even ask the question? anything that could be consistent, is by this definition not government by these terms.this does not seem to be looking for any kind of answer, as any answer it said to not be government by definition.

[In_The_Gray]

No I'm not. This is the 2nd time today you've claimed I was saying something I was saying. Set aside the prejudice long enough to have a conversation with me or don't pretend to have a conversation with me. Does that seem fair to you?

 

I have no more prejudice on this issue than you and I'm not pretending to have a conversation. I am genuinely in search of validation for anarcho-capitalism and I do admit that I am currently opposed to it based on the many reasons I've already mentioned (specifically related to power and control).

If I'm putting words in your mouth it is entirely unintentional and means that I apparently misunderstood a point you were attempting to make. Correct me, don't insult me.

 

You're pointing to the effects of coercion and calling it the effects of the free market. This is incredibly dangerous since people see things like that and prescribe more violence as the solution. If you're so worried about monopolies and the rich using their wealth to exploit people, focus on the State coercion that protects evil doers even when they make decisions that would rightfully sink them in a free market.

 

 

And again, I am pointing to the effects of coercion and calling it the effects of power, not just free market. Money is power, and power gives those who attain it a powerful weapon that can (and often is) used to the detriment of mankind for the benefit of the few with power.

 

And I do focus on State coercion on a regular basis. I hate government and I hate what they force upon me. But the free market doesn't solve many of the issues we face today. Many issues it might even make worse.

The examples I used with the oil industry, inadequate wages overseas, factory farm cruelty, insurance loopholes, these are just some examples that exist with or without government support. Indeed, government influence is always at play, but it doesn't act as a game changer in these areas I mention. The free market would fix none of this.

 

So even though I am against the government's impact, I don't see the logic in pushing for a drastic change towards anarcho-capitalism when it is only slightly better than the current state of affairs. If a drastic change is to be made (which I hope there is), so far I am not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is what should be considered as the end goal. I might seem unreasonably firm on this subject, as do you, but that is because I came to my current conclusion after a great deal of thought and have not yet seen valid evidence that disproves my beliefs. 

[RestoringGuy]

And I do focus on State coercion on a regular basis. I hate government and I hate what they force upon me. But the free market doesn't solve many of the issues we face today. Many issues it might even make worse.The examples I used with the oil industry, inadequate wages overseas, factory farm cruelty, insurance loopholes, these are just some examples that exist with or without government support. Indeed, government influence is always at play, but it doesn't act as a game changer in these areas I mention. The free market would fix none of this.

 

So even though I am against the government's impact, I don't see the logic in pushing for a drastic change towards anarcho-capitalism when it is only slightly better than the current state of affairs. If a drastic change is to be made (which I hope there is), so far I am not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is what should be considered as the end goal. I might seem unreasonably firm on this subject, as do you, but that is because I came to my current conclusion after a great deal of thought and have not yet seen valid evidence that disproves my beliefs. 

I think that is an excellent explanation.  There is constant struggle with deciding what is government/coercion, and what is free market.  People can say words have meaning so this is free and that is not, so somebody might say "I can prove you wrong" etc.  Sure I guess.  But meanings are vaguely chosen and in constant flux even after they are applied to words.  I can only communicate with somebody if I adopt their meanings and ways of thinking, at least partially.The examples you give are not examples I think are perhaps the highest priority, and you're right the free market would not fix them.  But it seems likely to reduce them compared to the status quo, or as you said slightly better.  I do not think Libertarian is a contradiction, but it could be strategically misguided.  To me, whether state-of-last-resort is necessary in a few cases does not seem to be the main problem.Because of the perceived importance of talking about government or force, it is with some reluctance that I suggest software and computer systems are where the effort should be spent.  Computers grow more centrally controlled (UEFI, corporate app stores, automated updates) and the very means we have to communicate distaste for corruption can be blocked and eclipsed by state/corporate media.  Those with power have the kill switch, and they can use it whenever they might politically start to lose.  I think libertarian competitiveness should be focused purely on tech, and not politics, because the tools of politics are now essentially technological and there is no other way to succeed.

[In_The_Gray]

The examples you give are not examples I think are perhaps the highest priority, and you're right the free market would not fix them.  But it seems likely to reduce them compared to the status quo, or as you said slightly better.  I do not think Libertarian is a contradiction, but it could be strategically misguided.  To me, whether state-of-last-resort is necessary in a few cases does not seem to be the main problem.

 

I appreciate your response.

But I actually do believe that the examples I gave are some that could very well be considered as the highest priority, in a way. Or, at the very least, extremely important issues that should not be ignored.

 

Oil companies are literally destroying the world we live in. Literally. The very air we breath is at risk.

 

Private sector-caused deforestation is major cause for alarm. 

 

Privately run pesticide companies are literally causing the extinction of pollinators that we require for our survival and that will likely have an impact on countless other species that will, in effect, damage us even further. I didn't mention the pesticide companies earlier, but I'll just add it to the list.

 

Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc...

 

Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs.

[dsayers]

Correct me, don't insult me.

 

How could I correct or insult somebody that is presented with "I like chocolate" and comprehends it as "vanilla is abhorrent"? Any attempt to correct would be equally warpedly received, no?

 

Money is power

 

Money is stored value.

 

I do focus on State coercion on a regular basis. I hate government and I hate what they force upon me. But the free market doesn't solve many of the issues we face today

 

The free market CAN'T solve many of the issues we have today because the issues we have today are the result of coercion, including the coercive manipulation of the free market, which renders it not a free market. YOU ARE POINTING TO THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE AND CALLING IT THE EFFECTS OF THE FREE MARKET. If you have a store, I visit your store, I agree to pay you a price that's depicted on a price tag, and you charge me that +X% to satisfy a sales tax, this is not a free exchange. Am I getting through to you at all?

 

So even though I am against the government's impact, I don't see the logic in pushing for a drastic change towards anarcho-capitalism when it is only slightly better than the current state of affairs.

 

Translation: Love making is only slightly better than rape. Love making cannot solve the issues of rape because the problem is with intercourse in general. Comparatively, this is what you're saying. This is why I love Stef's phraseology of exposing the gun in the room. Coercion is a problem. The storing of value, the voluntary exchange of value, all the things that do not involve coercion are not the problem. In the scenario above, you are not the bad guy for charging me extra, it's the people with the gun to your head making you charge extra that is the evil.

 

Oil companies are literally destroying the world we live in.

 

An overstatement, but the extent to which this is true is entirely at the hands of coercion. Who stole the money to build all the roads, entrenching us into an oil-based society? Who gives variances to allow companies to pollute when recollection and purification options exist? Who empowers them with the ability to squelch alternative fuels?

 

Private sector-caused deforestation is major cause for alarm. 

 

Vague description, yet not true. The fact that you don't see the difference between violence and voluntary interaction, and the fact that all you keep bringing up is vague talking points indicates you're a rebel without a cause more than anything. In the US, the lumber industry was actively rotating forests, replenishing the stock they were cutting down. Violence stepped in to tell them what they could and couldn't do based on owls that lived there for example even though the owls already adapted to this. Ironically, this was done as the result of people, who thought they could control others by using the gun in the room, started complaining about air and running out of this renewable resource. Like let's ban french fries or else we'll run out of potatoes! No, we just plant more. Get it?

 

To be clear, I post this stuff for others who might be swayed by your vague nonsense. I had already addressed some of the minutia, to which you just kept going like you weren't corrected at all. You lied to me earlier when you said that you focus on the State.

[cab21]

I appreciate your response.

But I actually do believe that the examples I gave are some that could very well be considered as the highest priority, in a way. Or, at the very least, extremely important issues that should not be ignored.

 

Oil companies are literally destroying the world we live in. Literally. The very air we breath is at risk.

 

Private sector-caused deforestation is major cause for alarm. 

 

Privately run pesticide companies are literally causing the extinction of pollinators that we require for our survival and that will likely have an impact on countless other species that will, in effect, damage us even further. I didn't mention the pesticide companies earlier, but I'll just add it to the list.

 

Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc...

 

Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs.

 

companies would not function the way they do today, if people followed anarchy capitalism.

 

problems you are bringing up are because of certain government policies (which neither minarchists or anarchists subscribe to) , rather than anarchy capitalism or minarchy with free market capitalism.

[In_The_Gray]

How could I correct or insult somebody that is presented with "I like chocolate" and comprehends it as "vanilla is abhorrent"? Any attempt to correct would be equally warpedly received, no?

 

By all means, continue with the insult-based approach of debating. It is well known to be very successful.

 

 

Translation: Love making is only slightly better than rape. Love making cannot solve the issues of rape because the problem is with intercourse in general. Comparatively, this is what you're saying. This is why I love Stef's phraseology of exposing the gun in the room. Coercion is a problem. The storing of value, the voluntary exchange of value, all the things that do not involve coercion are not the problem. In the scenario above, you are not the bad guy for charging me extra, it's the people with the gun to your head making you charge extra that is the evil.

 

The problem is being controlled by a greater power. Government is a greater power and uses more forceful methods of control

Large monopolies are a greater power and use repressive tactics to force my involvement.

 

To use the analogy you seem to love so much, you are comparing violent rape to manipulative rape (date rape drug, non-violent threats, etc…).

 

My fear is that anarcho-capitalists seek a distorted version of freedom that is really nothing but slavery wearing a different mask.

 

 

 

 

An overstatement, but the extent to which this is true is entirely at the hands of coercion. Who stole the money to build all the roads, entrenching us into an oil-based society? Who gives variances to allow companies to pollute when recollection and purification options exist? Who empowers them with the ability to squelch alternative fuels?

 

That majority of consumers are the ones the support the oil industry, even more than government does. Am I to believe that just because we switch to an anarcho-capitalist society that our entire history of violent-based actions is erased? Are the roads that we drive  no more? Do consumers have no more reason to support what they already willingly do?

 

 

 

Vague description, yet not true. The fact that you don't see the difference between violence and voluntary interaction, and the fact that all you keep bringing up is vague talking points indicates you're a rebel without a cause more than anything. In the US, the lumber industry was actively rotating forests, replenishing the stock they were cutting down. Violence stepped in to tell them what they could and couldn't do based on owls that lived there for example even though the owls already adapted to this. Ironically, this was done as the result of people, who thought they could control others by using the gun in the room, started complaining about air and running out of this renewable resource. Like let's ban french fries or else we'll run out of potatoes! No, we just plant more. Get it?

 

My example may be partially incorrect because it really is a vague and messy subject. But your response is equally stretched and one-sided.

 

But what about my other examples?

Pesticide companies make billions and dominate the entire agricultural industry because of some tax breaks? Give me a break.

 

And what about the other two? You just don't agree?

Quote from previous examples:

"Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc...

 

Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs."

 

 

To be clear, I post this stuff for others who might be swayed by your vague nonsense. I had already addressed some of the minutia, to which you just kept going like you weren't corrected at all. You lied to me earlier when you said that you focus on the State.

 

And no I did not lie. I prioritize my arguments in this message board. I'm not going waste time complaining about the evils of government when you're basically on the same page as me on that one. It is the issues I have with anarcho-capitalism that is debatable with you, and it is debating those issues that will allow me to learn more about the flaws of my arguments and/or validate my hesitation of anarcho-capitalism.

[cab21]

"Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc...

 

so why is the worker undervaluing his own wage?

the employer makes a offer, and the employee can take or reject it.

 

how is a person automatically entitled to a job, or a certain wage, without negotiation?

 

who decides the proper value of the wage if not the wage earner and the wage payer?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

First and foremost, I am an anarchist and I am not trying to bash libertarians at all, just trying to understand better.

 

So my question is, when people are asked what political party they see themselves apart of and they answer with, "The libertarian party", doesn't this make them a hypocrite? This is also assuming that they are a libertarian because they believe in freedom.

 

So, since you can't have freedom while enslaved to government, how can there be a political party that wants freedom and not be considered a hypocrite? It is like a slave owner saying he doesn't believe in slavery while voluntarily owning slaves.

 

The only way I can see libertarian working is if it isn't a political party at all and is anarchy mixed with the non-aggression principle. Then, anyone who claims to be a part of the libertarian political party would therefore not believe in freedom and have a different definition to the word libertarian.

 

Anyways, if anyone can explain how I am wrong, if I am wrong, that would be awesome. I just keep hearing people tell me they are libertarians as they continue to vote and support government.

I think you are correct. They can call themselves Libertarians but their position is inconsistent with the NAP. So they're really just statist-lite. 

[dsayers]

The problem is being controlled by a greater power.

 

Does not indicate voluntary or coercive.

 

Government is a greater power

 

Does not indicate voluntary or coercive.

 

uses more forceful methods of control

 

Does not indicate voluntary or coercive.

 

Large monopolies are a greater power

 

Does not indicate voluntary or coercive.

 

As many times as I've pointed out this distinction, it's incredibly rude to keep babbling as if the distinction hasn't been called into question.

 

you are comparing violent rape to manipulative rape (date rape drug, non-violent threats, etc…).

 

This is your interpretation of me comparing rape to love making. You are saying that love making is "manipulative rape." This simultaneously indicates that you interpret coercion as voluntary. It also means that you think there's a difference between violence and coercion.

 

And what is a non-violent threat? If I say to you, "If you don't stop abusing heroin, we can't be friends." That is non-violent and because it is non-violent, it is not a threat.

 

You have a serious issue discerning violence from peace. It is frightening.

 

My fear is that anarcho-capitalists seek a distorted version of freedom that is really nothing but slavery wearing a different mask.

 

Thank you for your honesty. If somebody notices a fear of something, the next step is to determine if the fear is rational or not. Anarchism is without rulers. No coercion there. Capitalism is owning things. No coercion there. Does this mean that a society that honored property rights in general wouldn't have some coercion? Of course not. But it would mean that the market would be free to punish, avoid, and compete against such coercion, pushing it out by voluntary means.

 

Again, if slavery is your fear, why the hell would you not focus on the State?! You're being completely dishonest.

[In_The_Gray]

I have responded to the comment regarding the distinction between voluntary and coercive, you just ignore my points.

 

Voluntary suggests partaking in something that is not necessary to my health and well-being. It becomes involuntary as soon as it becomes critical to my life. Such as food, shelter and land.

If everything in the world can be owned, it will inevitably all be owned. The earth itself is a limited resource that can be easily abused when people take way more than what they need (multi-billionaires owning hundreds of thousands of acres, etc…)

So what happens when you are born into a world owned by the rich? You may claim that you have the “freedom” to offer them money for a piece of their land, but financially it makes more sense for them to continue owning it and renting it at excessively high rates, if they choose to do so.

 

Without enough funds to buy from the rich we are left renting from the rich with funds earned by working for the rich. This is not voluntary even though there is no gun to our heads. Our lives are at risk (no land = no garden, no hunting, no shelter). That is the repressive tactics I speak of, which you refer to as “voluntary” acceptance.

 

 

I call into question the very idea that capitalism can be used together with the concept of anarchy. An anarchistic world would be a world with no rules and no ownership whatsoever. The rules of capitalism contradict the philosophy of anarchy.

 

You keep accusing me of not focusing on the state, seemingly as a way of distracting from the flaws of capitalism that i propose. I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not in favor of the state. I don't believe in being controlled by anyone. Ever.

There is such thing as a non-violent threat, though. The fact that you ignore this is telling, in it's own right.

 

You can manipulate my comments with purposefully artificial examples all you like, such as the “If you don't stop abusing heroin, we can't be friends” remark. But that does no justice to your argument.

 

How about “If you don't work 60 hours a week for $2 an hour I will make sure you don't work in this town again”. Keep in mind that the “work” in this example is necessary for the individual to survive in a world where they are unable to afford to buy any land. How do they get a job elsewhere if the job supplier hold the monopoly of the industry?

 

This is the point that you just don't get. If money is necessary for survival (which it is if ownership is necessary to have access to land, food, shelter, etc…) then the threat of joblessness, being denied the ability to rent, being denied access from the fruit, vegetables, and wildlife on forest land -- these are all real threats and apply to an anarcho-capitalist world.

 

 

I am not in favor of the state. I am in favor of anarchy. True anarchy. Free from state laws and free from those who own and control the necessities of life by taking advantage of the rules of capitalism.

[dsayers]

Voluntary suggests partaking in something that is not necessary to my health and well-being. It becomes involuntary as soon as it becomes critical to my life. Such as food

 

Maybe bigger text is what was missing. Nope, prescribing actual violence won't solve imagined violence.

 

So if you voluntarily enter into a trade with somebody, and that trade involves food, the trade is suddenly involuntary?

 

So if somebody invests their body, time, and effort into growing food, they owe it to everybody else because nourishment is a requisite to live? Isn't that suggesting coercion (positive obligation without consent) against the guy with the food?

 

More importantly, if you need food, then why would you be bellyaching on a forum about how everybody else owes you food instead of developing your human capital and providing value for others to provide for YOUR need for food?

[In_The_Gray]

Maybe bigger text is what was missing. Nope, prescribing actual violence won't solve imagined violence.

 

So if you voluntarily enter into a trade with somebody, and that trade involves food, the trade is suddenly involuntary?

 

So if somebody invests their body, time, and effort into growing food, they owe it to everybody else because nourishment is a requisite to live? Isn't that suggesting coercion (positive obligation without consent) against the guy with the food?

 

More importantly, if you need food, then why would you be bellyaching on a forum about how everybody else owes you food instead of developing your human capital and providing value for others to provide for YOUR need for food?

 

 

I am not saying that someone who grows food owes me a piece of what they grow. I'm saying that nobody should have the right to prevent me from growing my own food as a result of them having bought up all the land that food can be grown on. Especially in the case of the land being bought up long before i was even born. In this case, I am born into a world as a trespasser on private property with no means of attaining my own other than “voluntarily” being a slave to the owners of the land.

 

 

It should not be impossible for me to grow my own food on un-used land (note: “un-used” does not mean “un-owned”). The necessities of life should be attainable to all by default. Not “earned” after a lifetime of slavery to land/business owners.

[dsayers]

No one person has bought up all the land. You're describing an effect of the fact that we weren't here first. This is something that applies to 99.999% of humans that have ever lived. We all have to compete for the limited resources of this world and we do that by improving our human capital and working, storing value, and securing some of it for ourselves. People die every day and people are selling that which they own every day for a variety of reasons.

 

Not that I see there being a problem as you do, but what is your proposed solution? I myself cannot picture anything that wouldn't violate the property rights of those who own things before us. If their acquisition wasn't coercive, we couldn't possibly suggest having a greater claim than they do. I phrase it this way because of your later attempt to distinguish unused from unowned. I agree that just claiming something and never making use of it isn't the same as owning it. However, it is unclear to me as to how things such as parks, nature preserves, etc could ever be possible if we only considered use as proper ownership. There are a lot of people who wish to preserve such things and there is no more valid way to do so than to buy that land and NOT develop it. A privately owned park would surely be much better maintained than the publically owned ones we see now.

 

Please, be specific. The vague descriptions make reading and responding quite laborious.

[cab21]

It should not be impossible for me to grow my own food on un-used land (note: “un-used” does not mean “un-owned”). The necessities of life should be attainable to all by default. Not “earned” after a lifetime of slavery to land/business owners.

 

 

there is plenty of unowned land ( let alone unused) out there. go out and use it.

or do you want to use land other people have already developed rather than developed your own land?

 

the majority of unused land that is owned, is owned by governments  (and not the minarchist kind)

[In_The_Gray]

No one person has bought up all the land. You're describing an effect of the fact that we weren't here first. This is something that applies to 99.999% of humans that have ever lived. We all have to compete for the limited resources of this world and we do that by improving our human capital and working, storing value, and securing some of it for ourselves. People die every day and people are selling that which they own every day for a variety of reasons.

 

Not that I see there being a problem as you do, but what is your proposed solution? I myself cannot picture anything that wouldn't violate the property rights of those who own things before us. If their acquisition wasn't coercive, we couldn't possibly suggest having a greater claim than they do. I phrase it this way because of your later attempt to distinguish unused from unowned. I agree that just claiming something and never making use of it isn't the same as owning it. However, it is unclear to me as to how things such as parks, nature preserves, etc could ever be possible if we only considered use as proper ownership. There are a lot of people who wish to preserve such things and there is no more valid way to do so than to buy that land and NOT develop it. A privately owned park would surely be much better maintained than the publically owned ones we see now.

 

Please, be specific. The vague descriptions make reading and responding quite laborious.

 

 

The example I use of someone who has monopolized an industry of land ownership is a very realistic one. And the distinction between un-used and un-owned is one of the major flaws of capitalism, in my opinion.

 

In a true anarchistic society all people would be free to wander the land as they see fit. I could garden on un-used land, hunt on un-used land, and build shelter on un-used land at no expense other than my own physical labour.

Using our rational thinking skills, when I encounter crops in a man-made garden that wasn't made by me, I would morally acknowledge the fact that this belongs to someone else, even though there is no technical rule of “ownership”

If I were to come across a man-made shelter, I would not take it as my own because I did not build it, unless the “owners” of that shelter gave me permission to do so.

These decisions are made with moral rationality rather that capitalistic rules.

 

All are free to live their lives however they see fit. The obvious “right” and “wrongs” still exist but are entirely based on our empathetic and logical thinking skills. Theft is one of those “wrongs” even though ownership is now a very different concept.

Suddenly “ownership” now directly relates to what is being used by others, rather than what has been “bought” by others, which entirely prevents the issue of large amounts of land being owned but not used.

 

Using your example of environmental conservation; a group of like-minded people could come together to protect an area of land if they choose to do so. They could put up signs that border the protected area, they could build fences, etc… But in true anarchy they could not claim that land as their own just because they think it should be protected.

Many people would pass by that protected area and acknowledge their cause, and continue on to other land that seemed less significant to protect. Others might happen to really like an aspect of that land, such as the clean water source, and they may choose to oppose the wishes of the conservationists. Since the land is technically not being used (i.e nothing is being “stolen” from others simply by inhabiting that land) there is really no issue here. They might build a house on that land, and the conservationists might complain. That's it. If that land was of utmost importance to the conservationists then they should move there themselves, building temporary shelters that do not harm what it is they protect. Set up a community dedicated to the protection of this land. If they don't care enough to do that then who are they to prevent others from making use of it? It doesn't cost them money (which they would have to save up for their entire lives in a capitalist world), it costs them dedication.

 

 

With this version of moral ownership it would be impossible for humans to own more than they use. Environmental destruction can and most likely would still occur, but there would be less motivation to, for example, cut down a rain forest and ship it across the ocean. Environmental destruction would occur based on direct need rather than greed, which is much more justifiable.

there is plenty of unowned land ( let alone unused) out there. go out and use it.

or do you want to use land other people have already developed rather than developed your own land?

 

the majority of unused land that is owned, is owned by governments  (and not the minarchist kind)

 

The vast majority of privately owned land is not used (not including occasionally being walked on). The vast majority of government land is also not used and is illegal to use. If it were not owned by government it would eventually be owned by private buyers (obviously). An important thing to keep in mind is that the world today is not the same as the world tomorrow. As the population increases there will be less and less un-owned land. And more and more of that owned land would likely be bought up by a monopoly for their financial gain.

Think about several generations in the future. Think about how much land will be left to buy and how expensive that land would become.

 

A good life for people in the future is just as important as it is for people in the present. We would be at an advantage if society were to switch to anarcho-capitalism today, but it seems likely that every year that goes by would get harder and harder.

[cab21]

The vast majority of privately owned land is not used (not including occasionally being walked on). The vast majority of government land is also not used and is illegal to use. If it were not owned by government it would eventually be owned by private buyers (obviously). An important thing to keep in mind is that the world today is not the same as the world tomorrow. As the population increases there will be less and less un-owned land. And more and more of that owned land would likely be bought up by a monopoly for their financial gain.

Think about several generations in the future. Think about how much land will be left to buy and how expensive that land would become.

 

A good life for people in the future is just as important as it is for people in the present. We would be at an advantage if society were to switch to anarcho-capitalism today, but it seems likely that every year that goes by would get harder and harder.

 

 

ownership of land is not a requirement to meet essential needs in life.

plenty of people choose to rent in a city rather than own farmland for instance, and these are really life choices.

 

one farmer, who knows how to farm, and produce profits from farming, and owns a lot of farmland, is better than lots of people owning farmland, but not knowing how to grow food on it and not being able to make a profit. these people are freed up to do activities where they do know more of how to make a profit.

[Andrew79]

A good life for people in the future is just as important as it is for people in the present.

Woah!You had a reasonable defence of your "version of moral ownership" going until this.This is nothing but an empty, disingenuous, emotional sound-bite.It's designed to make people think that under your collectivist anarchy, people in the future would have the sort of good life we have now, or better (because it's the future).But that's not the case. Switching to collectivism would send humanity back in time, and without private property and money, progress, if there was any, would be in super-slow-motion.So while collectivism would be able to maintain the same standard of living for centuries, it would be a very, very low standard.If you're happy with that, good for you. But I don't want you forcing that on me, and I'm sure they'll be plenty of others who agree with me.As I said in the other thread, collectivists have these wonderful stories, but that's all they are, stories.And note how they usually take place in the future...

[In_The_Gray]

ownership of land is not a requirement to meet essential needs in life.

plenty of people choose to rent in a city rather than own farmland for instance, and these are really life choices.

 

one farmer, who knows how to farm, and produce profits from farming, and owns a lot of farmland, is better than lots of people owning farmland, but not knowing how to grow food on it and not being able to make a profit. these people are freed up to do activities where they do know more of how to make a profit.

 

Access to land (garden, hunt, shelter) is the absolute basic requirement to meet the essential needs of life. Not everybody wants to live off the land and not everybody should. That doesn't take away from the fact that I shouldn't be born into a world where I must work for a company, pay rent, and save up until I can afford access to land that isn't even being used in the first place.

 

In a truly anarchistic world all of the benefits of capitalism would still be possible. Currencies would exist for those that choose to use them. These currencies just wouldn't have as much power over people as they would in an anarcho-capitalist society because they wouldn't be required to sustain life. Under anarchism I could live off the land if I need to, or I could work for a currency (like bitcoin, for example) and buy my food from someone who trades their goods. I could also rent from someone who built a rental building and allows me to live in it.

 

All of this is possible without strict capitalist rule. I do not want to be born as a trespasser on private property working as a slave to earn enough to make life sustainable. I want to be born free.

 

 

 

 

Woah!

 

You had a reasonable defence of your "version of moral ownership" going until this.

 

This is nothing but an empty, disingenuous, emotional sound-bite.

 

It's designed to make people think that under your collectivist anarchy, people in the future would have the sort of good life we have now, or better (because it's the future).

 

But that's not the case. Switching to collectivism would send humanity back in time, and without private property and money, progress, if there was any, would be in super-slow-motion.

 

So while collectivism would be able to maintain the same standard of living for centuries, it would be a very, very low standard.

 

If you're happy with that, good for you. But I don't want you forcing that on me, and I'm sure they'll be plenty of others who agree with me.

 

As I said in the other thread, collectivists have these wonderful stories, but that's all they are, stories.

 

And note how they usually take place in the future...

 

 

There is nothing collectivist about what I said. The point I make is that anarcho-capitalism is seemingly best early on, but more harmful as generations pass.

Non-ownership (based on my examples) is not collectivist. It is anarchistic.

 

There is nothing being forced on anybody in my example. The point about the future is just to not think short-sightedly about our change to how society functions. Not thinking about the big picture (which includes the future) is a bad idea.

 

 

And talking about “imposing” — an anarcho-capitalist society would be imposing a capitalist lifestyle on those who don't necessarily want it. If you want capitalism as part of your way of life, fine. I don't.

[Andrew79]

Non-ownership (based on my examples) is not collectivist. It is anarchistic.

Ok, so there's a business/factory/whatever who controls it?Capitalism says the owner. Collectivism says the workers. Anarchy says... 

There is nothing being forced on anybody in my example. The point about the future is just to not think short-sightedly about our change to how society functions.

If you're not going to use force to impose your philosophy, fair enough (not sure about the use of "in my example" though).

Not thinking about the big picture (which includes the future) is a bad idea.

 Absolutely, we only have scarce resources after all, we don't want to waste them. And the most efficient way of using them is through private property and prices.

If you want capitalism as part of your way of life, fine. I don't.

And that's the excellent thing about capitalism, no one's going to force anything on you. If you don't want to be part of it you don't have to be.There's plenty of people all over the world who claim to despise capitalism, under anarcho-capitalism there'd be nothing at all to stop them from getting together in communes, or some going into forests to setup environmental communes, or whatever.It's the anti-capitalists who tend to want to force their philosophy on others.

[dsayers]

Environmental destruction can and most likely would still occur, but there would be less motivation to, for example, cut down a rain forest and ship it across the ocean. Environmental destruction would occur based on direct need rather than greed, which is much more justifiable.

 

Ooh, rain forest. Magic words. You're not using your head. What good would it do to invest in all the equipment needed for logging only to cut something down one time and stop there? Lumber is a renewable resource. Calling it environmental destruction is manipulative.

 

The State is more responsible for pollution and "environmental destruction" than the private sector could ever be. Do you know why? It's called the tragedy of the commons. Without ownership, nobody has the incentive to replenish and plan for a sustained crop. This would be true of your everybody roaming the forest, planting their own stuff as if division of labor doesn't make all of our live more efficient and rewarding.

 

You also mention need vs greed and I can tell this is just your cop-out for trying to make your position seem unassailable. What people need and greed is for them to decide. I've already pointed out that if you want to live and need food to do that, you can accomplish that. If you're not willing to voluntary exchange value with others just because they have more stuff at the onset of the transaction, then it's not really about needing food, is it?

 

If you won't aim your contempt at the State, how about your parents? If what you're saying is true, then they seriously screwed you by not amassing more property to be able to give you some so you could play on a level playing field as everybody else. No no, it can't be the state, it can't be your parents, it HAS to be those bastards that promote property rights even though making these posts, and even just the act of joining the boards, turning on your computer, etc is directly accepting property rights.

[In_The_Gray]

Ooh, rain forest. Magic words. You're not using your head. What good would it do to invest in all the equipment needed for logging only to cut something down one time and stop there? Lumber is a renewable resource. Calling it environmental destruction is manipulative.

The benefit is that these forests are massive and the payoff they would provide would be huge for many years. Lumber is renewable, specifically softwoods which can be regrown after decades. Valuable hardwoods are thousands of years old and cannot be regrown to their same beneficial state in our lifetime, and not with the same natural diversity. The effects of replacing old growth hardwood trees with new trees are environmentally damaging, but financially profitable.

 

But again, deforestation is not the primary impact of greed over need. There are plenty.

 

 

 

The State is more responsible for pollution and "environmental destruction" than the private sector could ever be. Do you know why? It's called the tragedy of the commons. Without ownership, nobody has the incentive to replenish and plan for a sustained crop.

 

Yeah, the state is responsible for a great deal of environmental damage. This doesn't mean that the private sector is angelic in that regard. I don't aim for a system that is “not as bad”, I am for one that is all encompassing and that promotes true freedom.

 

And saying “without ownership, nobody has the incentive to replenish and plan for sustained crop” is complete bullshit. The sustainable crop is the incentive. In anarcho-capitalism, money is the main resource and it is that which would be most protected. In Anarchism it would be the sustenance of your crops that is most valuable to the individual because money wouldn't be a necessity -- unless, of course, they willingly chose to live their life by trading currencies for necessities, which is fine.

 

 

 

This would be true of your everybody roaming the forest, planting their own stuff as if division of labor doesn't make all of our live more efficient and rewarding.

 

 

Division of labour is still possible in an anarchistic society, but it is by collective choice that is not forced upon anyone. If you believe it makes life more rewarding then that's fine. That doesn't mean it should be imposed on me.

 

 

 

You also mention need vs greed and I can tell this is just your cop-out for trying to make your position seem unassailable. What people need and greed is for them to decide. I've already pointed out that if you want to live and need food to do that, you can accomplish that. If you're not willing to voluntary exchange value with others just because they have more stuff at the onset of the transaction, then it's not really about needing food, is it?

 

 

Yes it is about needing food. And it is about needing to bow down to a system of capitalist ownership in order to obtain that food. I don't believe everyone has the right to sit on a their ass and wait for food and entertainment to be delivered to them. I do believe they need to work for it. However, this does not mean they should be required to labour for someone else's gain so that they can afford to survive. It means they should be free to work the land, hunt, build, or even go out and labour for someone else's gain willingly, if they see the benefit in that.

 

Money is not optional in anarcho-capitalism. It is necessary for survival. It is not "volunteering" if it is a requirement to live.

 

 

 

If you won't aim your contempt at the State, how about your parents? If what you're saying is true, then they seriously screwed you by not amassing more property to be able to give you some so you could play on a level playing field as everybody else. No no, it can't be the state, it can't be your parents, it HAS to be those bastards that promote property rights even though making these posts, and even just the act of joining the boards, turning on your computer, etc is directly accepting property rights.

 

Stop ignoring my contempt for the state. I said over and over that I don't agree with the state and that I want drastic change. Just because it's not anarcho-capitalist change doesn't make it invalid. And to blame your parents is the ultimate cop-out. I have no control what my parents chose to do. I can blame them for giving birth to me in poverty but that doesn't change the fact that I am still at a huge disadvantage. No amount of hate or complaining is going to change that.

 

To shed new light on your parent argument; why aren't you blaming your parents for your current slavery to the government? It was your parents choice to give birth to you while political power exists. They willingly gave birth to you without any exemptions from government law, like having political power of their own, or being status indian, etc… Your parents must be total assholes and they should be blamed for everything you disagree with... Ridiculous argument, isn't it?

 

 

 

And yeah, I've “accepted” property rights. That doesn't mean I agree with them or that I should be forced to agree with them. If I were to not "accept" property rights in our current state of society I would be shelter-less and without food. “Accepting” property rights is a strategic choice in life, not a desire. Though the “moral ownership” i discussed technically would still allow me to trade (i.e purchase) goods if I chose to do so. There would be no legally binding contract, but there would be a moral ownership of sorts.

[RestoringGuy]

But I actually do believe that the examples I gave are some that could very well be considered as the highest priority, in a way. Or, at the very least, extremely important issues that should not be ignored.

Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs.

I donate to HFA for that reason, because much farm abuse is often intentional and there is censorship in that arena (not just state inaction).  But this is all superceded by the presence of malice.  Most of your examples are side effects, not deliberately intended end results.  Polluters do not make their goal to pollute, it is an unwanted side effect which all we can say is they do not try hard enough to avoid.

 

Philosophically, yes this is an area where capitalism and morality collide.  But I insist that does not matter.  Not right now.  The state and its apologists engage in malice, attempting to murder and mutilate intentionally.  So it is like the chicken and the egg.  In the statist realm you can either (1) promote brutality on  a widespread institutional scale so that a perceived greater evil is better recognized, essentially an authoritarian approach, or (2) create a mental blind spot against immense and avoidable evil, giving illusion of purity by focusing on all evil outside that blind spot, essentially a dishonest touchy-feely approach that backfires horribly.

 

You could also take a mixed (centrist) approach, blocking out and censoring some evils, while trying to painfully draw attention to others.  In any case it's a mixture of bad and worse and we wind up with a status quo.

[dsayers]

Division of labour is still possible in an anarchistic society, but it is by collective choice that is not forced upon anyone. If you believe it makes life more rewarding then that's fine. That doesn't mean it should be imposed on me. ... I do believe they need to work for it. However, this does not mean they should be required to labour for someone else's gain so that they can afford to survive.

 

You don't see the contradiction here, do you? Your manipulative use of the word "required" aside, "someone else's gain" is not only vague, it's circular and omnipresent. If you go to work for McDonald's, yes, they will profit off of your labor. Just as you profit off of their equipment. It's a--ready for this?

 

VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE OF VALUE

 

You cannot escape the "for somebody else's gain." McDonald's does what it does for somebody else's gain. Namely, the customers. But by serving the customers, they profit also. Just as while you work for them, you profit also. In any voluntary exchange, both parties gain. You cannot escape this. It's not even a blight, let alone one on capitalism.

 

I'm done. I only bothered arguing against the Marxist bullshit for the benefit of others, but by this point, we have an entire stable of dead horses and you are clearly not interested in the truth.