Libertarianists/Anarchists - what's the difference ?

BenjAii

I'm curious as i've come across a few people now on boards.ie that subscribe
to libertarianism.

In essence though it seem exactly the same to me as Anarchism, except
is followers are of the left and the opposite is true for libertarianism.

My own personal opinion is to find many of the principles laudable
but to have considerable skepticism of the ulterior motives of followers
on both sides.

brianthebard

Firstly you should provide a definition of what you understand libertarianism to be, because otherwise we will have a dozen different people with different arguments based on their own definitions. What I'm trying to say is libertarianism/liberalism is complicated.
Second point would be my understanding of libertarianism is that the state is as uninvolved in personal affairs as possible. It is a leftist doctrine.* The difference between that and anarchism is that anarchists seek the destruction of the state and to put in place a new system, libertarians don't go that far (despite the "shrink the state small enough to drown" quip).
What you may be referring to when you imply libertarianism is right wing is neo liberalism, again a term with many different meanings. My understanding of it is generally the sort of free trade abroad, protectionism at home policies that countries like the US and the EU as a group follow. This can have profoundly negative effects for people in the third world and is tied in many ways to the concept of neo colonialism, deemed to be monopolistic and exploitative.



*again depends very much on definitions.

BenjAii

brianthebard wrote: »

Firstly you should provide a definition of what you understand libertarianism to be, because otherwise we will have a dozen different people with different arguments based on their own definitions. What I'm trying to say is libertarianism/liberalism is complicated.

Taking wikipedia to give us broad definitions.

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government i.e. the state. The term anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχω, anarcho, meaning "without archons" or "without rulers",[2][3] from ἀν (an, "without") + ἄρχή (arche, "to rule") + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν). It is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state.


Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.

Second point would be my understanding of libertarianism is that the state is as uninvolved in personal affairs as possible. It is a leftist doctrine.* The difference between that and anarchism is that anarchists seek the destruction of the state and to put in place a new system, libertarians don't go that far (despite the "shrink the state small enough to drown" quip).
What you may be referring to when you imply libertarianism is right wing is neo liberalism, again a term with many different meanings. My understanding of it is generally the sort of free trade abroad, protectionism at home policies that countries like the US and the EU as a group follow. This can have profoundly negative effects for people in the third world and is tied in many ways to the concept of neo colonialism, deemed to be monopolistic and exploitative.



*again depends very much on definitions.

I get your point, it seems inherently leftist. It's just my observation that those that espouse it seem to be quite right-wing.

brianthebard

Well that's why I wanted you to define it. In this country it would probably seem quite right wing; in England the lib dems are fairly left. In America libertarians are way out on the left beside the commies-it varies from state to state and period to period. I don't think there are many(any?) libertarians who are seriously espousing the abolition of the state.

BenjAii

brianthebard wrote: »

Well that's why I wanted you to define it. In this country it would probably seem quite right wing; in England the lib dems are fairly left. In America libertarians are way out on the left beside the commies-it varies from state to state and period to period. I don't think there are many(any?) libertarians who are seriously espousing the abolition of the state.

Brian, I'm puzzled by what you are saying here. Libertarianism belongs firmly on the right in the US. The UK Lib Dems are Liberals, something completely different from libertarianism.

2Scoops

Libertarians: Economically right wing (less government); socially left wing (I'm ok, you're ok).

Anarchists: Teenage angst.

Kama

In essence though it seem exactly the same to me as Anarchism, except
is followers are of the left and the opposite is true for libertarianism.

Like many tasty ideological products, there's more than one flavour; or rather, the position tends to be flavoured with the context. The similarity is in seeing the state as an oppressive force infringing on a more 'natural' state of affairs/human liberty; there's a congruence with neo-liberalism here, with the Hayekian genealogy. I always get a strange deja vu reading market-libertarian stuff about self-organization without central authority and thinking about anarchist philosophy tbh.

However, most right-libertarians (like Nozick) require a night-watchman state, to protect the right to indivudal property, which anarchists of the Left would usually see as the plain 'aul coercive State, handmaiden to the propertied elite. While anarchism and libertarianism share correlates on the political axis of state authority, they tend to be polar opposites on the economic axis. Political Compass works well for this.

nesf

At its simplest Libertarianism is essentially about small Government and the primacy of individual freedoms (some groups put more emphasis on the former or vice versa). The different flavours come from the multitude of definitions for small, differing stances on redistribution of income within a small State etc. Libertarians do however, generally speaking, recognise a need for some government and think some things are better done by the State etc which is what differentiates them from Anarchists who generally believe that there should be no State

In reality you'll find that neither anarchism nor libertarianism can be pinned down by single all encompassing definition and you might be better off thinking of both of them as being distributed across a range on a political axis and that their ranges overlap slightly.

SteveS

BenjAii wrote: »

Libertarianism belongs firmly on the right in the US.

It is neither left, nor right.

Manic Moran

Although correct, it's generally considered to be a conservative viewpoint, and thus to the right on the very simplistic American political chart.

NTM

Akrasia

For my position on what anarchism is there's quite a long thread on this forum here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055009758

There are also other threads about 'anarcho capitalism' and libertarianism where I am very forthright in my view that anarchism and libertarianism are totally different in very fundamental ways

RNL

Anarchism is anti-authoritarian socialism.

A 'libertarian', nowadays, is a socially liberal believer in the 'free market' (aka neo-liberalism).

But it should be noted that the word was co-opted by the American right; the first person to call themselves a libertarian, in 1857, was Joseph Déjacque, a French anarcho-communist.

SkepticOne

A degree of authority is necessary for socialism on a large scale. People, for the most part, don't voluntarily give up what they have to others unless forced whether or not they have an excess of goods. I may have more than you, but before I hand it over, I want to know what you are willing to offer me in return.

On a small scale, of course, there may be some sharing. I might share things with family or friends or neighbours. There might also be charity. But these things happen in all societies. In itself it is not what most people would think of as socialism.

Therefore left-anarchism is a rather incoherent philosophy. It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

It's not. Few are under the illusion that authority can be completely done away with. But the burden of proof of legitimacy is on the authority figure. An interesting definition of legitimate authority is anyauthority that, inherently, seeks its own redundancy; the authority that a teacher has over a student, for instance (in terms of education per se, not necessarily the education institutions we've constructed), is in a constant state of liquidation, as the teacher imparts more of her knowledge to the student, the inequality between the teacher and the student decreases until eventually the student and the teacher are equals. That's one example of arguably legitimate authority. Authority which ossifies and seeks to defend itself (the state, for instance) is illegitimate. Surely most people would agree that ideally there ought to be absolutely as little social hierachy as is possible. Hierarchy is subordination of one to the other and it's antithetical to liberty.

Akrasia

SkepticOne wrote: »

A degree of authority is necessary for socialism on a large scale. People, for the most part, don't voluntarily give up what they have to others unless forced whether or not they have an excess of goods. I may have more than you, but before I hand it over, I want to know what you are willing to offer me in return.

On a small scale, of course, there may be some sharing. I might share things with family or friends or neighbours. There might also be charity. But these things happen in all societies. In itself it is not what most people would think of as socialism.

Therefore left-anarchism is a rather incoherent philosophy. It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

'therefore' its a bit much to completely write off anarchism based on that very limited and flawed summary of what you think constitutes an anti authoritarian society

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Few are under the illusion that authority can be completely done away with. But the burden of proof of legitimacy is on the authority figure.

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police. Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

RNL

Sand wrote: »

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police.

...?

That's force, not proof of moral legitimacy.

Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

That's an unsupportable, elitist condescension, and a double logical fallacy to boot (appeal to authority + appeal to tradition).

Insofar as liberty is defined as the capacity to live the life one desires to live, everyone desires liberty, by definition.

You assert that people desire to be ruled. I contend that many people desire to be led, and that leadership is not implicitly authoritarian. Rulership is leadership that is not necessarily consensual, and thus authoritarian.

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote: »

'therefore' its a bit much to completely write off anarchism based on that very limited and flawed summary of what you think constitutes an anti authoritarian society

I don't completely write it off. I leave the door open for counter argument.

What I think left-anarchists need to show is that groups naturally cooperate on the large scale over long periods. It is not enough to merely define cooperation into existance.

Otherwise, I maintain that groups look after themselves primarily with a relatively small priority given to cooperation. Cooperation within small groups but generally competition between them.

Akrasia

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't completely write it off. I leave the door open for counter argument.

What I think left-anarchists need to show is that groups naturally cooperate on the large scale over long periods. It is not enough to merely define cooperation into existance.

Otherwise, I maintain that groups look after themselves primarily with a relatively small priority given to cooperation. Cooperation within small groups but generally competition between them.

Capitalism is mostly about cooperation, workers in businesses mostly cooperate, The reason human beings climbed down from the trees and became the extremely successful species that we are is because we choose to cooperate rather than compete on an individual basis for all our resources. There is only a small element of domination, and that is down to the allocation of rewards which is controlled by the capitalist. Anarchists choose to allocate rewards differently.

The other element of anarchism is the decision making process which is lateral rather than top down, and the currency to carry a decision is democracy, and not just cash.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police. Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

Which Anarchic state are you referring to when you say 'in practise'?

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote: »

Capitalism is mostly about cooperation, workers in businesses mostly cooperate, The reason human beings climbed down from the trees and became the extremely successful species that we are is because we choose to cooperate rather than compete on an individual basis for all our resources.

This is what I think anarchists fail to argue successfully. No one is saying that there is no cooperation between people. The problem is that for left-anarchism to work, this cooperation needs to be on a large scale and needs to be voluntary.

Most people don't voluntarily give up resources to those in greater need that they don't know to any great extent. It requires something equivalent to the state to cooerce the giving up of those resources.

Note that here, I'm not saying that either socialism or indeed anarchism are undesirable, but rather that they are not consistant with each other.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not saying that either socialism or indeed anarchism are undesirable, but rather that they are not consistant with each other.

Political anarchism = libertarian socialism.

I call myself a socialist simply because anarchism strikes me as more of a philosophical ideal, one of the moral principles upon which socialist political theory should be founded.

But anarchists are socialists.

(You're using the phrase 'left-anarchism', so presumably you recognise the anti-state right as a branch of anarchism. I don't, anymore than I do Stalinism as a form of socialism.)

RNL

Also, appeals to Human Nature are pretty flimsy...

nesf

RNL wrote: »

Also, appeals to Human Nature are pretty flimsy...

Not really, there's a whole raft of research into human nature these days. We've several academic disciplines that specialise in it.

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

Political anarchism = libertarian socialism.

I call myself a socialist simply because anarchism strikes me as more of a philosophical ideal, one of the moral principles upon which socialist political theory should be founded.

But anarchists are socialists.

(You're using the phrase 'left-anarchism', so presumably you recognise the anti-state right as a branch of anarchism. I don't, anymore than I do Stalinism as a form of socialism.)

Yes, I know many of those who call themselves anarchists tend to hold socialist views in addition anti-state views. I just don't think these views are consistant on a large scale.

Even ignoring human nature, socialism involves compusory collectivism. It is not an option for my group to decide to keep all it produces including surplus, it must be shared with the wider society. There's a sense in which socialism implies a state.

But when you bring in human nature things really fall apart.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

Not really, there's a whole raft of research into human nature these days. We've several academic disciplines that specialise in it.

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

Unless you're a theologian, I suppose...

I'm aware you're probably referring to fields like anthopology, linguistics, neurology, etc, but that's not what I or, I presume, ScepticOne were referring to.

It's either a metaphysical question about the 'essence' of the human animal, or the implication is biological determinism on the level of social organisation (which has us a hair's breadth from Social Darwinism).

If the question is "Do humans 'naturally' cooperate over long periods of time?", then the answer is Yes. Just look at any voluntary cooperative endeavour that's lasted a long time (political movements, for instance). Any and all human behaviour, throughout the entire history of the species, must, by definition, be within the bounds of possibility of Human Nature.

So, unless you do want to attempt to answer the metaphysical questions, or you do want to make a case for biological determism at the level of social organisation, appeals to Human Nature in political debates are pretty flimsy.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes, I know many of those who call themselves anarchists tend to hold socialist views in addition anti-state views. I just don't think these views are consistant on a large scale.

Even ignoring human nature, socialism involves compusory collectivism. It is not an option for my group to decide to keep all it produces including surplus, it must be shared with the wider society. There's a sense in which socialism implies a state.

You're talking about socialism as though its a monolithic school of thought. And the way you're descibing it makes it sound like a primitive form of anarcho-communism. 'Your group'? It calls to mind hermetic 19thC farming communities engaged in trade. I don't think anyone has that kind of quasi-tribalism in mind when they talk about anarchism (though I fully understand how the word conjures those associations, which is another reason I don't call myself an anarchist).

Any kind of social organisation on a large scale requires administration. But administration doesn't have to be authoritarian. I wouldn't acknowledge a democratic, non-authoritarian form of representative administration as being a State. EDIT: Certainly if it existed on an international scale.

But when you bring in human nature things really fall apart.

Because we know nothing about it, or about whether it even exists.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

You think that human nature doesn't exist?

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

Unless you're a theologian, I suppose...

I'm aware you're probably referring to fields like anthopology, linguistics, neurology, etc, but that's not what I or, I presume, ScepticOne were referring to.

No, it is this latter sense of human nature that I'm referring to, not some metaphysical or religious notion.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

You think that human nature doesn't exist?

I don't know. Humans are nothing but emergent properties of the natural world, so I think it's more accurate to talk about humans, as animals, being of nature than to talk about humans having a Nature. Those are very different things.

On the level of physiology, obviously you can say "It's natural for humans to ingest food, extract nutrients and excrete faeces." You can say also, according to a logical principle, rather than any kind of scientific understanding, that it's natural for humans to cooperate and compete, since humans do both. It's evident that both cooperation and competition lie within the bounds of possibility of Human Nature (if there be such a thing).

But if you want to start talking about the natural limitations on human behaviour (in any sense, including social organisation) then you're engaging in pure speculation and assumption. And an increased scientific understanding of linguistics or neurology won't change much of anything. Successfully mapping the genome hasn't had much of an effect on the debate either.

Appeals to Human Nature carry an implication of biological determinism at the level of social organisation. This has not even come remotely close to being evidenced. In fact, the deep heterogeneity of human behaviour in terms of social organisation and the heavily evidenced adaptibility of human psychology indicates quite the opposite. So aside from coming uncomfortably close to Social Darwinism, and thus carrying a whiff of status quo apologetics (no accusation intended), the appeal to Human Nature is making an implicit assertion that is unsupportable, and is demanding the debate become a discourse on a subject nobody knows anything about.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

Appeals to Human Nature carry an implication of biological determinism at the level of social organisation. This has not even come remotely close to being evidenced. In fact, the deep heterogeneity of human behaviour in terms of social organisation and the heavily evidenced adaptibility of human psychology indicates quite the opposite. So aside from coming uncomfortably close to Social Darwinism, and thus carrying a whiff of status quo apologetics (no accusation intended), the appeal to Human Nature is making an implicit assertion that is unsupportable, and is demanding the debate become a discourse on a subject nobody knows anything about.

No, I don't think the argument is that black or white. Human nature can be taken as any inherited inclination in behaviour, it does not necessitate or imply genetic determinism. Take monogamy as an example. Different animals (and I'm viewing man as just another animal here) have different "marital structures" some form monogamous pair bonds, some polygamous etc et al. There tends, in any one species, a tendency towards one of these with the others being rare. When you look at humans, even in the most remote untouched tribe, monogamy tends to be the rule (not absolutely, there tends to be some polygamy but not much and no polyandry). This is the kind of human nature that I'm talking about, a simply inclination in our behaviour towards a certain kind of behaviour. We choose this, we don't have it thrust upon us, it just happens that as a species we tend to choose it if given a choice in the matter.

Appeals to human nature can be weak and sometimes plain wrong as with many groups arguing about the "natural order", but denying it even though it is plainly obvious that people aren't born with a tabla rasa as the mind it would be silly to start from a position that we don't inherit some tendencies in our behaviour. Matt Ridley published a good and very readable book on the topic of genes vs experience and how we aren't forced to accept a position at the polar extremes in this debate as is often argued for by both sides: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/1841157465/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227214149&sr=8-1

Essentially the logical fallacy in your argument above is one of the excluded middle. Acknowledging the existence of human nature does not force us to subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of Social Darwinism.

AARRRGH

BenjAii wrote: »

Libertarianists/Anarchists - what's the difference ?

Libertarianists believe they can control their own fate.

Anarchists like parkour and think anonymous/scientology protests are cool.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

No, I don't think the argument is that black or white. Human nature can be taken as any inherited inclination in behaviour, it does not necessitate or imply genetic determinism. Take monogamy as an example. Different animals (and I'm viewing man as just another animal here) have different "marital structures" some form monogamous pair bonds, some polygamous etc et al. There tends, in any one species, a tendency towards one of these with the others being rare. When you look at humans, even in the most remote untouched tribe, monogamy tends to be the rule (not absolutely, there tends to be some polygamy but not much and no polyandry). This is the kind of human nature that I'm talking about, a simply inclination in our behaviour towards a certain kind of behaviour. We choose this, we don't have it thrust upon us, it just happens that as a species we tend to choose it if given a choice in the matter.

Appeals to human nature can be weak and sometimes plain wrong as with many groups arguing about the "natural order", but denying it even though it is plainly obvious that people aren't born with a tabla rasa as the mind it would be silly to start from a position that we don't inherit some tendencies in our behaviour. Matt Ridley published a good and very readable book on the topic of genes vs experience and how we aren't forced to accept a position at the polar extremes in this debate as is often argued for by both sides: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/1841157465/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227214149&sr=8-1

Essentially the logical fallacy in your argument above is one of the excluded middle. Acknowledging the existence of human nature does not force us to subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of Social Darwinism.

I'm not arguing from a tabula rasa conception of the mind. The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism. We inherit the capacity to learn to behave in particular ways in particular contexts. Beyond that you're assuming. I think we can agree that whatever the structure of the human mind is, it's more complex than that of the minds of other animals. My feeling on the prevalence of monogamy, for what it's worth, is that it's a social extension of the inherent procreative relationship between human males and females. It's a social construct that has a clear biological root. I don't think competitive monopoly economics has a comparable biological root. There's nothing unjust, exploitative or oppressive about monogamy either... unless it's coercive (like capitalism). So it's not a very good analogy.

You understand the distinction I'm drawing between the facts of the biological makeup of the human animal as an emergent property of the natural world (which must exist, but which we know very little about) and the concept of Human Nature (which is ostensibly the same thing, but is discussed, very speciously, in political theory and elsewhere, as though it's a metaphysical issue - in which sense its existence is very much an open question).

There is always an implication of biological determinism when you talk about Human Nature precluding the possibility of certain forms of human social organisation. It's biological determinism on the level of 'the masses' rather than the individual. I mean, this 'inclination' you're referring to is very ill-defined. You're suggesting that each individual has it within their power to choose to behave in such a way as would make possible an organisation of economic life along libertarian socialist lines, but that due to this inherited 'inclination' most people wouldn't. Is that right? If so then that is biological determinism on the level of social organisation; the 'inclination' is just the form this mass social determinism takes on the level of each individual.

Akrasia

AARRRGH wrote: »

Libertarianists believe they can control their own fate.

Anarchists like parkour and think anonymous/scientology protests are cool.

what are you talking about??

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism.

Would we not need to know a fair amount about the human mind to say this? Yet earlier you say

The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'

How do we know greed, atruism and so forth are primarily learned traits (as opposed to merely being influenced by learning) if we know nothing (as you claim) about the mind.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

Would we not need to know a fair amount about the human mind to say this?

No, we need only the evidence of the "deep heterogeneity of human behaviour", even, and in fact mostly no less so, within genealogical lines, that I mentioned earlier.

The rest is deduction.

If you want to set about trying to prove that narcissism or altruism are inherited traits, fill your boots. But the burden of proof is definitely on you, and all signs point to no.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

I'm not arguing from a tabula rasa conception of the mind. The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism.

How much of modern neuroscientific and psychiatric/psychological research are you aware of? (genuine question, I'm not trying to be smart here). There has been a wealth of work done on what attributes appear to be at least partially inherited, it's still a very young field but we know a great deal more about what the mind is and its interplay with genetics than we did two or even three decades ago, never mind the early to mid twentieth century where much of the academic boundaries between social science began to be set.

We can inherit such "social attributes" like tendencies towards religious fundamentalism, it's been clearly demonstrated with twin studies. Drawing an a priori line in the sand and saying "this" must be learned isn't exactly born up by the evidence.

RNL wrote: »

I mean, this 'inclination' you're referring to is very ill-defined. You're suggesting that each individual has it within their power to choose to behave in such a way as would make possible an organisation of economic life along libertarian socialist lines, but that due to this inherited 'inclination' most people wouldn't. Is that right?

Not really. Look, take mental illness as an example (simply because illnesses can tell us a lot about the mind). A person can have a predisposition genetically towards one but never develop it unless they are exposed to certain environmental conditions (it's the interplay of nurture and nature here that gives us the result not solely one or the other).

We definitely don't need choice along libertarian lines (I don't believe in free will, and hold this position to start with) but it is not inconsistent with the existence of free will in whatever form you want so long as you don't presuppose as tabla rasa starting point for the mind. This inclination is a potential towards a certain kind of behaviour, action or condition that (usually) needs to combine with some environment factor in order for this behaviour, action or condition to occur or happen. We can allow these kinds of tendencies, which are contingent on environment factors, without having to subscribe to either extreme of the genetic determinist/environmental determinist spectrum.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

No, we need only the evidence of the "deep heterogeneity of human behaviour", even, and in fact mostly no less so, within genealogical lines, that I mentioned earlier.

The rest is deduction.

Um, have you looked at twin studies*? There's a lot that's heterogeneous and a lot that isn't so the rest isn't just deduction. Two family members DNA (if they are not identical twins) isn't hugely homogeneous anyway, so we wouldn't expect anything but a lot of heterogeneity in behaviour between siblings etc.



*For anyone reading this who isn't familiar with the term, twin studies come from when two identical twins are sometimes adopted by different families and then are compared in adulthood. Since these two people share all their genetics but none/little of their environment (except importantly from the womb!) looking at what is similar and what isn't is a good way of seeing what is (at least partially) inherited and what isn't. By then looking at fraternal twins in the same position (i.e. more genetic difference but still a lot in common especially environmental factors from the womb) and then two random children (i.e. a lot of genetic difference and less in common compared to the other two groups) you can get an idea of the strength of inheritance etc. These studies have been used to great effect in mental illness research, with bipolar for instance the chance of the second child having the illness if the first child has it is about 50% for identical twins, 20ish% for fraternal twins and around 1% for two random people showing the the illness to be strongly inherited (which is unsurprising given it's been observed for over a century to run in families from what I remember).

The important point to take from the bipolar studies is this: There is no absolute genetic determinism going on with bipolar. Even with identical genes one twin can have it and the other not because they were exposed to different environments growing up (though they were exposed to the same environment in the womb). You inherit a tendency and only that, only a small fraction of inherited illnesses are "simple" deterministic diseases like Tay Sachs Disease, where if you have a specific mutation in a specific gene you will develop it and that's that. If one identical twin has Tay Sachs, the other one will too.

For example from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_studies



MZ = identical twins, DZ = fraternal twins, higher = more strongly inherited/shared between twins.

Eurosceptic2008

I suppose one difference is that libertarians tend to believe in the concept of a state under a (limited) govt, whereas anarchists don't.

Brigantes

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I suppose one difference is that libertarians tend to believe in the concept of a state under a (limited) govt, whereas anarchists don't.

That's it exactly.

Anarchists believe that all forms of government are inherently bad.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil but should be severely limited. The original American Constitution shows how Libertarians aimed to impose checks and balances on elected representatives. The BBC News site has a great introduction to the limits on power built into American politics.

Another key difference between Anarchists and Libertarians would be their views on property.

Kama

But we know next to nothing of what that structure is

I've much sympathy with RNL's original complaint; appeals to human nature do tend to be hellah flimsy; using biological evolution as a justification for social forms has a poor track record as alluded to...which isn't an argument against, more of a necessary nuance to bear in mind. Nevertheless, 'nothing' baldly overstates the case. However, I'm fully in agreement that 'what is more relevant [is] what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.'

Taking the monogamy-marriage example, the influence between social context and 'nature' can be examined in the social roles governing 'marriages'. I actually think it's a pretty good point of initial comparison; it's one of the most primal form of social relation after mother child (high 'naturalness') typically involves exchange and division of labour, and I'm probably making this particular 'social contract' in the next 6 months haha! It's a social relationship that can be highly equal or unequal, oppressive or liberatory, parasitic or symbiotic, and so on. That and I'm a fan of basic lived metaphors...

Previous to the agricultural revolution (shift from hoe to plow as means of production) we have more mother goddesses (typically a Mother goddess with a replaceable and dying young male consort) while post we have Father gods, often with subordinate female consorts. Coeval with this we have increased male property/economic dominance. Social forms shift from a polyandrous tendency to a more polygynous one. One for the Marxists, cultural superstructure follows material-economic base. There's a African tribe a little like this, where the men dress pretty and have beauty pagaents, and the women run the businesses. 'Human nature' has been trotted out often enough to justify gendered structuration of power, after all, as feminist scholarship will attest; it's generally been a power-play imo. Our understanding of what 'human nature' is or was has tended to shift and reflect the current social practices of the enunciating culture, it seems tenable to presume we are no different.

Now, on 'nature' lines, we can get a fair estimate of the degree of 'natural' predisposition to monogamy from things like testicle size proportional to body weight, but taking the justification of social forms from this 'naturalness', or stating the irrelevance of them, seems equally and oppositely untenable. (I imagine telling my gf I've been spreading my seed abroad due to 'my innate biological urges due to my large (in interspecies terms) testicles, analagous to the nature-justification argument, and it seems as ridiculous as presuming there are no pre-existent and transmitted rules and patterns, social facts for the Durkheimian, and our behaiour is willed and chosen rather than modulated and bounded by accreted social practice.)

My epeenion is that the claim that certain social forms aren't possible due to evo-devo constraints squares oddly with the apparent fact that historically we as a species (and this appears to be our gift and curse) have manged to curcumvent constraints both physical and social, through our social and physical tools. The dice may be loaded, whether towards dominance hierarchies, greed, oppression, being sluts, yet we can and have managed to achieve equalities, selflessness, liberation and fidelity. Or vice versa

The proof of the pudding is...well, the pudding, rather than projections of what is possible with the human ingredients = my 2c.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The dice may be loaded, whether towards dominance hierarchies, greed, oppression, being sluts, yet we can and have managed to achieve equalities, selflessness, liberation and fidelity. Or vice versa

Well, that's exactly it. The problem with environmental determinists is that they say that the dice are fair, which there is a huge mountain of evidence against. The opposite, that the results are completely fixed has an equally huge mountain of evidence against it. The reality lies between the two extremes, as is so often the case.

Kama

Ah, but without the extremes of disagreement, we'd have the tyranny of mediocre agreement!

and that's against Human Nature!

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Ah, but without the extremes of disagreement, we'd have the tyranny of mediocre agreement!

and that's against Human Nature!

I really wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of evidence showing that to be true tbh. Just look at politics across the world and history.

SkepticOne

I think Kama makes some good points. When we look at cultures around the world and through history we are looking at things that have social structures that have evolved to survive in different environmental conditions. Even if people are basically the same in terms of common human psychology, the way this expresses itself will vary widely. Though I think most people know this already.

It is important, however, not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. It does not mean all social systems are possible or possible without cost.

If we devise a social system that is in conflict with human nature (however we understan it) then there will be a cost. I'm thinking about the great socialist experiments including the Soviet Union and China among others here.

Kama

It is important, however, not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. It does not mean all social systems are possible or possible without cost.

Over and above (unanswerable imo) meandering musings on the true identity of real or reified human nature, this is the core political question for me. Social systems can be viewed as having costs and benefits, which accrue to a greater or lesser extent to different groups within them. I'm assuming politico-economic systems, which effect and reflect distribution of power-resources, are often zero-sum; my power or property excludes that of another.

The key distributional question is who bears the costs, and who gains the benefits, and (regrettably?) this ain't as straight a cost-benefit as one might like. We collectively differ on definition of the benefits, and on relative weighting of the (unagreed) metrics.

If, for a hypothetical, we could trade personal economic liberty for better overall health care outcomes, should we? A 'Leftist' typically will, and will show greater tolerance for, say, Cuban totalitarianism, or cite the increased mortality statistics under liberalized Russia for example, much as a 'Rightist' might show greater tolerance for, decreased political liberty in post-Allende Chile. Costs are always incurred in some form, the Albrightian is usually whether 'we think the price was worth it'. Uncomfortably we drift into the unpleasantly-associated domain of ends-justified utilities.

What outcomes do we favour, what costs are we willing to bear...or cause another to bear, is the determining question. The critical angle approaches this with the imputed costs that we are already bearing or inflicting (a position I share btw), and might view all our enacted social systems as 'experiments', regardless of their ideology.

To attempt to veer back on-topic, (right-anachist) libertarians tend to value individual property ownership far higher than left-anarchists, but I've always vaguely suspected the key differences between them to be more tribal than theoretic, and based more on initial imprints, social associations and dispositions than on any rational weighting and comparison. Though that does kinda demolish my previous argument hehe...

When we look at cultures around the world and through history we are looking at things that have social structures that have evolved to survive in different environmental conditions.

Again, this hits it for me; the adaptive utility of social structures for current environments seems a better approach than making presumptions about whether the 'spook' of human nature allows or disallows any given experiment. Proof of the pudding, again. Our primary mode of evolution for the last while has been socio-cultural more than biological; the 'real' social Darwinism for me is that we have a far greater degree of volition in the selection of what survives, that evolution is no longer quite as blind. My dislike of the 'human nature' argument is its tendency to place limits on this evolution based on past events; I'm reminded of the Fordist quip, predating the self-help industry: 'whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right!'

Akrasia

Brigantes wrote: »

That's it exactly.

Anarchists believe that all forms of government are inherently bad.

Actually, it's more like, all forms of authority should be challenged, and imposed authority is bad.

This is important because anarchists are just as opposed to bosses as we are to governments, and this is what separates us from libertarians. Libertarians are against governments limiting their personal freedom, but have no issue with capitalist bosses telling their workers when they can and can not take a piss.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil but should be severely limited.

it's necessary to stop the poor from rising up against the rich, and to enforce 'contracts' thereby turning lawyers and the courts into the government rather than the elected officials we now suffer under.

Another key difference between Anarchists and Libertarians would be their views on property.

yep, property is key, people without property will always be dominated by people who control the resources. they can and will be just as tyranical as any government.