Is "Libertarian" a Contradiction?

[In_The_Gray]

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  But this is all superceded by the presence of malice.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.

 

I agree, they are definitely not deliberately intended end results. But are terrible end result, nonetheless.

 

 

 

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.

 

You make good points to justify a lesser of evils. And anarcho-capitalism is exactly that. A lesser of evils.

 

But to fight against the status quo, would you willingly fight for the lesser of evils (anarcho-capitalism) when you truly believe that there is an approach that is significantly less evil than even that (true anarchy, in my opinion)? I'm not saying that YOU actually believe this, of course. I just mean that as a question for you if you were in my position.

 

 

 

 

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

 

I am not manipulating the word “required”. If the necessities of life (food, shelter) must be purchases, then bowing to the rules of capitalism is REQUIRED to sustain your life.

The “VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE OF VALUE” is only voluntary in the sense that you are able to negotiate said value. The exchange is a requirement if you want to afford life's necessities.

 

The voluntary exchange of value is an excellent concept when applied to common goods and services (paying for someone else to build my house, buying food because I don't want to grow/hunt it on my own, etc…).

It is a terrible concept when it is a requirement to sustain your life and, more specifically, when your perceived value is unsustainable in affording the basic necessities. Just because a bunch of people got lucky and bought a home for a meagre amount and can therefore survive off of very low pay doesn't mean I will have the same luck. Some people might require $2 an hour to survive due to buying/renting their home when it was cheap,  which drives down worker pay rates for all. Other's might required $10 an hour to survive because living costs (land ownership OR rent) have risen since then based on market value (higher population, higher demand). Guess who's out of luck in that example?

 

That goes for working for someone else's gain, as well. I don't mind working for someone to earn money. I have issues with it when I MUST work for someone so that I can earn enough money to survive, rather than going out and surviving with my own skills outside of capitalist rule.

 

 

 

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.

 

Since when did anarchism become Marxism? You live in a black and white world, my friend. There are not only two options for society (capitalism vs. collectivism). There are countless variances outside of these concepts and an infinite number of combinations between them.

 

Is it really me that is blind to the truth? A “Marxist” who believes in freedom from all forms of rule? A “Marxist” that believes government control needs to end? An anarchistic “Marxist”?

[RestoringGuy]

But to fight against the status quo, would you willingly fight for the lesser of evils (anarcho-capitalism) when you truly believe that there is an approach that is significantly less evil than even that (true anarchy, in my opinion)? I'm not saying that YOU actually believe this, of course. I just mean that as a question for you if you were in my position.

 

I suppose I would support anarchocapiltalism, with the proviso that inheritance and things like IP and land ownership (an abstract boundary) rely on a religious argument that the owner somehow morally holds on to what they do not physically hold, as if their spirit remains with the goods.  In that regard some weak form of collectivism, mixed with individual contracts, I think has a better argument.  In any case, not of this matters if computer technology is controlled by a helix of corporations.  Politics is only wasted time because whatever better alternative can be squashed.

[Andrew79]

Since when did anarchism become Marxism? You live in a black and white world, my friend. There are not only two options for society (capitalism vs. collectivism). There are countless variances outside of these concepts and an infinite number of combinations between them.

Cool.Could you help clarify this for me then as I've not come across a third way:

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...A link to a site, book, or video's fine, I'm always happy to read/watch.And:

Division of labour is still possible in an anarchistic society, but it is by collective choice that is not forced upon anyone.

It's either by collective choice, or it's the individual's choice.And as far as I'm aware the standard collectivist line on this is that getting rid of capitalism would automatically get rid of the "over-specialised" division of labour.Admittedly they then usually go on to talk about the schemes they would put in place to enforce this, demonstrating that they know they're lying.

[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.

 

in ancap, land not used it land not owned.

today, if private land is not being used, it's because a government is protecting that ownership without a proper sense of property rights. it's government regulation , rather than private ownership via homesteading that would cause private land to not be in use.

 

so explore space if you think there is not enough land on earth. by the time this may be a problem, space exploration will be advanced enough that people that don't like conditions on earth can leave earth.  several generations into the future technological advancement will be several generations advanced.

 

 

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.

 

the increase in wealth would make it less hard as years go by. new technology and inventions will make getting resources easier. people people free to advance and create technology and invention would open up to a lot of wealth generation. future generations would only benefit from increased productivity and reduced energy expense.