Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Akrasia

I have come out very very strongly in the past on this forum about my view that 'Anarcho-capitalism' is fundamentally incompatible with anarchism, and that Libertarianism, if it was ever fully implemented, would lead to a society much worse than the one we have now.

A few years ago when I started the "what is anarchism" thread there were hardly any 'libertarians' around here, but in the very recent past, they appear to be crawling out of the woodwork and now dominate most of the discussions about economics and the role of the state (not always through force of argument, often just through persistence)

I'd like one big deathmatch between the two anti statist ideologies, and I'd like to ask the first question.

Q. Exactly what is it about the state that Libertarians are so opposed to, and how do they think an alternative based on property rights and markets would be an improvement for society? (the people)

turgon

I'm not really a libertarian to the extent you talk about. Just one comment - you mention "two anti statist ideologies." I presume you mean anarcho-capitalism (libertarianism) and anarcho-socialism (extremist communism).

Anarcho-capitalism is probably the equivalent of a "free-for-all," with all members of the country volunteering to interact with each other through, for example, the free market. I can see how people can theoretically live without a state in this manner, but I do not consider it a good system. There are certain things, such as justice and road and communication networks that I believe are best held by the government. I do not believe competition can be effectively put into these areas.

Anarcho-socialism seems to be a bit of oxymoron. Groups in Ireland such as WSM advocate this. However all forms socialism do exist under certain rules. For example it appears you work for nothing and everything is free. There is no money, so you cant sell anything or work for profit. Everything is shared. It seems to me that to enforce these rules one does need a state.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Q. Exactly what is it about the state that Libertarians are so opposed to, and how do they think an alternative based on property rights and markets would be an improvement for society? (the people)

The current State setup is a fraud on the people and many parts of it are built on ponzi style assumptions. The fraud it pepetuated through the use of a Fiat money system, which robs the poor via inflation and rewards the client business interests whos main preoccuption becomes lobbying gov. instead of trying to win in the market.
The state is not subject to market discipline in the short and medium term and can make decisions that can put everyone at risk or play one group off against another in an arbitary manner. Eventually the state has its day of reckoning but by then so much damage is done to the people that their past cures/interventions were far worse then the original disease.
On a smaller scale the provision of services by the state guarantees less services at a higher cost and is generally responsible for bottlenecks and shortages.
Morally it creates criminals where none would exist under different systems and also creates moral hazard where people are rewarded for making reckless decisions.

headmuzik

Finally, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are not opposed, as your thread title would suggest.

I agree. In fact, before the word libertarian was misused and abused by the american "libertarian" party and others, the word libertarian was fairly synonymous with the ideas of libertarian socialism (or anarchism, if you like). As indeed it should be. Libertarian's are (by definition) supposed to be concerned with freedom. To support oppressive economic systems such as capitalism while simultaneously proclaiming that one places a high value on social freedoms, is a very confused position.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

I'm not really a libertarian to the extent you talk about. Just one comment - you mention "two anti statist ideologies." I presume you mean anarcho-capitalism (libertarianism) and anarcho-socialism (extremist communism).

, No I meant right Libertarianism (there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism) and Libertarian socialism (or commonly called anarchism)

Anarcho-capitalism is probably the equivalent of a "free-for-all," with all members of the country volunteering to interact with each other through, for example, the free market. I can see how people can theoretically live without a state in this manner, but I do not consider it a good system. There are certain things, such as justice and road and communication networks that I believe are best held by the government. I do not believe competition can be effectively put into these areas.

Yeah, though it's not a 'free for all', it's a pay for all, in that you'd have to pay for everything as everything would be privately owned.

Anarcho-socialism seems to be a bit of oxymoron. Groups in Ireland such as WSM advocate this. However all forms socialism do exist under certain rules. For example it appears you work for nothing and everything is free. There is no money, so you cant sell anything or work for profit. Everything is shared. It seems to me that to enforce these rules one does need a state.

Anarchists are not opposed to organisation, merely heirarchy and domination. Anarchists would like a society built on mutual aid and cooperation rather than competition and individualistic ownership rights as in a libertarian world

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sorry If it came across that way. Discussion is very positive and I do appreciate that the majority of libertarians try and engage honestly with the subject according to their own beliefs which is why I opened this topic to discuss the clear distinctions between the two main alternatives to the nation state as we have today.

I also think this is a very useful debate because when I discuss with libertarians in other threads, I keep getting accused of wanting to live in a totalitarian socialist state which is of course, an anathema to anarchism

Libertarians oppose the state on moral grounds because the state claims the right to do what everyone else is prohibited from doing—i.e., aggressing against person and property. Statists of all persuasions have their ideological rationales for why such aggression should be deemed acceptable. The left believes that the state should use its power to redistribute private wealth, create equality, and protect the vulnerable. The right believes that the state should bolster patriotism by aggressing against other nations, endorse favoured moral and/or religious values, and protect the traditional nuclear family. We see these debates all the time in the media—it is not a question of whether the state's coercive authority should be used, but how it should be used.

The libertarian disagrees with all of the above. He is generally suspicious of some aggregate abstraction called "society," understanding that statists regularly appeal to it whenever they wish to trample over the rights of the individual. The conservative wants to prevent the drug user from putting certain substances in his body, stop consenting gay couples from marrying, stop the immigrant coming from another culture—allegedly to protect "society." The leftist wants the state to hamstring the entrepreneur, restrict choices in health care and education, and redistribute the wealth that individuals have earned—again in the putative interests of "society." This goes on despite the fact that nobody is harmed when two lesbians marry, or when a child attends a private school.

Appealing to "society" always entails erasing the rights of the individual and imposing the group as the basic unit of life. Historically, this logic has legitimated hunting down the dissenter, the freethinker, the heretic, and often putting him to death—because doing so protects the interests of "society" and the state. Even Plato saw no place for the poets in his Republic, feeling that untrammeled creativity would be damaging to governmental stability. Stalin and Hitler felt much the same way.

Opposing this logic, the libertarian extends the concept of property rights over personhood itself. Most basically, the libertarian believes that the individual, not the state, owns himself. As such, the state has no authority to commandeer his labour, turning him into a part-time slave through taxation on his wages or his profits. It has no authority to conscript him as cannon-fodder for its wars. It has no authority to surround him with petty laws that restrict his free choices and actions. It has no authority to regulate his expressive, intellectual, or creative freedoms. The only rationale for infringing on individual liberty is when the individual has infringed on the rights or property of others.

For an illustration of how "society" benefits through a system of property rights and markets, one only has to look at what happens when the state takes that system away. In the former USSR—and in every other country that has ever experimented with communism—state appropriation of property rights and central control over the economy quickly descended into chaos, terror, famine, genocide, and mass pollution. Markets and property rights, on the other hand, foster peace, stability, prosperity, and freedom. These are tangible, measurable benefits.

Finally, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are not opposed, as your thread title would suggest. The latter is merely a logical extension of the former.

Thanks for that. I asked that question because I wanted to be very clear in your own words about the reasons for your position in order to avoid the trap of imposing my version of your beliefs into you before the discussion even starts.

I'll respond by briefly outlining why I, as an anarchist oppose the state.

Anarchists believe in direct democracy. We are in favour of everyone being entitled to have an input in the decisions that affect them. We are opposed to domination and authoritarianism, either by a despot, a king, or a capitalist landowner. We believe private property is a central cause of oppression and domination, and that an individual's ability to control the scarce resources that others need for survival gives them a position of authority and restrict the freedom of others to fulfil their own needs and ambitions.

You have outlined that Libertarians allow individuals ownership over themselves. Anarchists don't see it that way, we don't 'own outselves', we Are ourselves. The libertarian view of self ownership allows people to 'sell' themselves (as labour) to others, thereby giving over all their freedom to a master for a fee (all be it temporarily)

That is the difference between anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchists want us to be ourselves, libertarians want us to own ourselves. And by treating us like property that can be traded like any other commodity, people can be owned by others and find themselves enslaved.

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

Q. Exactly what is it about the state that Libertarians are so opposed to, and how do they think an alternative based on property rights and markets would be an improvement for society? (the people)

The current State setup is a fraud on the people and many parts of it are built on ponzi style assumptions. The fraud it pepetuated through the use of a Fiat money system, which robs the poor via inflation and rewards the client business interests whos main preoccuption becomes lobbying gov. instead of trying to win in the market.
The state is not subject to market discipline in the short and medium term and can make decisions that can put everyone at risk or play one group off against another in an arbitary manner. Eventually the state has its day of reckoning but by then so much damage is done to the people that their past cures/interventions were far worse then the original disease.
On a smaller scale the provision of services by the state guarantees less services at a higher cost and is generally responsible for bottlenecks and shortages.
Morally it creates criminals where none would exist under different systems and also creates moral hazard where people are rewarded for making reckless decisions.

I agree with most of that, but why libertarianism? Could there not be alternatives other than private ownership of everything and reliance on the free market for economic distribution?

The state restricts people's freedom to pursue their choices, but so does private ownership (you try and break the rules in a private shopping centre and see what happens?)

The heirarchical state is corrupt, that is undisputable, but so is the capitalist system (where there are constant attempts to break the rules for one's own gain wherever there is a chance of getting away with it)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course? because someone decides to label it that way?

Fine, There goes that mammal lizard, look at it there basking under a rock, without any fur and laying eggs to procreate, what a great mammal that is.

So what happens when competition and ownership rights naturally reassert themselves in your anarcho-socialist utopia? What happens when someone says "This is mine, and you're not taking it?"

Are you talking about posessions (toothbrush, clothes, personal audio equipment etc) or land, factories, forests etc?

Because there are distinctions between posessions and property.

'Property' under an anarchist society would operate under different social conventions. Instead of being utilised at the whim of an individual, it would be allocated according to how the local community would like to see it used.

Instead of an industrial factory being owned by a bunch of shareholders, it would be owned by the workers and community.

There are lots of advantages to this and some disadvantages.

turgon

First of all, there is such a thing as anarcho-capitalism. Wikipedia has an article on it so it must be true

A point to make about "freedom" in relation to the to anarchist ideologies. In anarcho-capitalism people would be free to acquire some land, get a group going and set up a "commune." Effectively an anarcho-socialist grouping within the over arching anarcho-capitalism group. People in anarcho-capitalism would be free do do community service for nothing, if they so choose.

However the same could not be said of anarcho-socialism. In your system people are forced to give away their possessions, they are forced to live under the economic rules you set, they are forced to work for no profit. They are forbidden from getting material reward. So surely in this case anarcho-capitalism is "freer" because it can accommodate both systems?

One other point. I understand Anarchism to be the movement towards getting rid of the state. Andrew Heywood describes it as "an ideology that is defined by the central belief that political authority in all its from, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary." Question: how does the current state differ from the "community" you speak of, which is allowed to determine what land is used for what and what people can and cannot do?

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

However all forms socialism do exist under certain rules. For example it appears you work for nothing and everything is free. There is no money, so you cant sell anything or work for profit. Everything is shared. It seems to me that to enforce these rules one does need a state.

What are your grounds for making this assertion? Unless you have exhausted the entirety of the literature dealing with conceptions of political/economic organisation then the above isnt valid.

I think terms such as Anarchism, Libertarianism, Socialism and possibly even Capitalism (though very possibly not), should not be used in discussions of political ideology. They are used by their proponents as a mode of asserting certain propositions which are taken to be axiomatic and therefore not justified in any way. Their supposed detractors likewise use them as easily available sources of what people take to be knowledge but are really unexamined prejudices.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

headmuzik

Turgon:

However the same could not be said of anarcho-socialism. In your system people are forced to give away their possessions

Anarchism does not involve forcing people to give away their possessions.
That is a strawman. As already mentioned, most socialists make a distinction between private property/possession.

More detail : http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

This thread is a good idea. Perhaps it will allow for some questioning of the questioners in a Turgonesque style a la the Communism thread.

donegalfella wrote: »

This sounds like sour grapes from a leftist who was once used to having it all his (her?) own way on these forums. Personally, I think it's to the credit of Boards.ie that posters of all political persuasions express their views here—and I don't see that any "side" dominates. That's what makes actual discussion possible, rather than just one-sided self-affirmation.

Apart from the above, good post. However, there are certain things you say where I think you oversimplify, misunderstand, or that I just plain disagree with.

Libertarians oppose the state on moral grounds because the state claims the right to do what everyone else is prohibited from doing—i.e., aggressing against person and property. Statists of all persuasions have their ideological rationales for why such aggression should be deemed acceptable. The left believes that the state should use its power to redistribute private wealth, create equality, and protect the vulnerable. The right believes that the state should bolster patriotism by aggressing against other nations, endorse favoured moral and/or religious values, and protect the traditional nuclear family. We see these debates all the time in the media—it is not a question of whether the state's coercive authority should be used, but how it should be used.

Right, and I think your implication that the debate over the legitimacy of the state is one which needs to be had is a good one. My own view is that the state is fundamentally illegitimate, but until the natural world and people themselves are removed from the exclusive power of certain individuals in the guise of private property then the state is a necessary evil. I suppose this would make me an "anarchist" in the terms of the OP.

The libertarian disagrees with all of the above. He is generally suspicious of some aggregate abstraction called "society,"

I hope they likewise oppose the use of such aggregate abstractions as "table", "human" and "property". If not, then they have no justification for opposing the concept of society on those grounds and should cease using this misleading but impressive-sounding arguement.

understanding that statists regularly appeal to it whenever they wish to trample over the rights of the individual.

You are mistaking an unintentional by-product of what is seen as a necessary action, for the intended action itself. The by-product's being unintended does not itself justify the action, of course, but it is necessary to weigh up all the effects of an action (insofar as is possible) in order to judge its legitimacy. The obfuscatory nature of your attacks on any action which goes against your particular conception of individual "rights", takes away from their credibility IMO. You should attempt a critique which takes into account any other effects which an action that deprives an individual of some freedom or other may have that may be positive before you condemn it categorically. Otherwise you end up with rhetoric which appeals to those of the same mindframe as yourself but lose any appearance of fairmindedness.

The conservative wants to prevent the drug user from putting certain substances in his body, stop consenting gay couples from marrying, stop the immigrant coming from another culture—allegedly to protect "society."

Right.

The leftist wants the state to hamstring the entrepreneur,

You are making the same mistake as above, in failing to recognise or deliberately obfuscating the intended action of those you are critiquing. Again, you end up with empty rhetoric, devoid of any real constuctive content. Why not give evidence to support your belief that this will be a product of a state governed society rather then make a generalisation which is blatently untrue. Why would anyone not want entrepenuership in society? The very worst case scenario in a socialist state would be that a more equal distribution of wealth would result in a stagnation of inventiveness due to a feeling of not being appropriately rewarded for effort. This is a legitimate enough opposition without having to scaremonger by massively misrepresenting the socialist's aims.

restrict choices in health care and education, and redistribute the wealth that individuals have earned—again in the putative interests of "society."

Have you heard about moral luck? I think there is reasonable room for scepticism surrounding the claim that individuals have "earned" their wealth. Heres a link to an introduction to the concept:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

This goes on despite the fact that nobody is harmed when two lesbians marry, or when a child attends a private school.

I would argue that harm occurs to children whose parents cannot afford private schools by the existence of private schools, which tend to offer a better standard of education due to their weaning of the best teachers and least disadvantaged students into their classrooms. This two tier system which harms those who cannot access private education is then perpetuated by the individual instance which you offer above. So even within your own conception of morality whereby any action which does not cause harm is legitimate there is more then enough room to oppose private education.

Appealing to "society" always entails erasing the rights of the individual and imposing the group as the basic unit of life.

Not at all. I can use the word society as a mode of representing an aggregate of such concepts of funtional interdependance and a sharing of common properties such as language, religion etc. Under this conception the individual may still be seen as the basic unit but that there is in existence such a thing as society.

A denial of society seems to me to be an entirely ideologically-motivated denial of plain common sense.

Please, refute the notion that humans are functionally interdependant and I will here-on-out never use the word society again.

Historically, this logic has legitimated hunting down the dissenter, the freethinker, the heretic, and often putting him to death—because doing so protects the interests of "society" and the state.

Perhaps. This does not denigrate the legitimacy of the concept of society, or make future claims with regard to its interests illegitimate, the idea being that what is in societie's interest is in each individual member of that society. It does however, mean that we must be vigilant in our opposition to such unjustified actions, given that we are indirectly responsible for what our society perpetrates.

Even Plato saw no place for the poets in his Republic, feeling that untrammeled creativity would be damaging to governmental stability.

Thats interesting, have never read any of his political philosophy.

the libertarian extends the concept of property rights over personhood itself.

I think you are misunderstanding the libertarian argument. Certainly in Nozick's conception, and anybody else, left or right libertarian that ive come across, maintain that property rights over the external world are a result of ownership over oneself and especially ones body, not the other way around, as you have put it above.

The burden of proof is then on the libertarian, first of all to justify the common-sense notion that we own our own bodies, and secondly, to justify the much less intuitive notion that we can "own" (whatever that means) the external world, or some arbitrary part of it. Certianly, Nozick's method of justification does not do it for me, a crude adaptation of Locke's arguments from several hundred years ago, and I have not encountered any other method of "proving" the existence or necessity of private ownership anywhere else. If you could let me know what your reasoning behind this central claim in your political ideology is I would appreciate it.

Finally, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are not opposed, as your thread title would suggest. The latter is merely a logical extension of the former.

Surely (if your argument is assumed to be right anyway) its the other way around. Are you saying one cannot be free under a non-capitalist system? I would have thought the idea of one solitary individual on a lonely desert island in the middle of nowhere is something like a libertarian's heaven, and I dont think you could really maintain that that individual is living under an anarcho-capitalist system.

Also, can you elaborate on your use of the concept of individual rights? What are they? Where do they come from? Is there a heirarchy within some spectrum, whereby one is preferenced over another in a given situation?


A good discussion could happen in this thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

headmuzik

All anarchists are socialists. The anarchist tradition has historically been rooted in socialist ideas from Proudhon onwards. So-called "anarchists" who claim to support capitalism are as anarchist as the "national socialists" of Germany were socialist.

Unless the garage, house or computer were being used to exploit others, or to exclude them from that which they need for survival, then I don't think the items could be regarded as "property".

The reference to "manufactured articles" in that segment of the anarchist FAQ, is referring to the fact that some manufactured articles CAN be used to control and exploit others (but may not necessarily be used in such a manner).

The property systems of most concern to anarchists are:

(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking;
(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent ("intellectual property") royalties.

The taxi example is an interesting one. On the one hand, you are providing a valuable service by ferrying people to and fro in your car. It makes intuitive sense that you should be remunerated for this work. But on the other hand, your ability to provide this service is dependent on the fact that you own or have access to car, while the clients of your service do not (or at least not at the time which they use your service). Thus you are remunerated not just for the work performed in bringing someone from A to B, but can also make a profit based on the "rental" of the space on the seat in your vehicle. This is a charge based on your ownership of the car, not on the work performed. The client is paying "rent" to receive your "permission" to sit in your car while you drive them from A to B. So there is both an exploitative property relation, and a less problematic (but still not ideal) market exchange relation for serviced rendered.

An alternative economic system like anarcho-communism which incorporated more participatory social planning would likely provide some form of taxi services as a response to social demand. These services could be provided freely in a moneyless economy or remunerated based on effort and sacrifice in economies following a model similar to parecon.
Ref : http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/zpareconfaq.htm

Such a system could remunerate the effort of driving the passenger from A to B, but remove the exploitative property "rent" and the other inequities that result from market exchange relations.

The main struggle within capitalism is between the working class and the ruling class - those who own or control the vast majority of property types I mentioned above, and those who do not. There are of course many shades in between the two classes, and some also suggest a "co-ordinator" class existing between the two major social classes. Regardless, the basic dynamics of class struggle are those that exist between these two social forces. Until the working class gains sufficient solidarity to stand together and overthrow capitalist social and political relations - including property, then they will remain subjugated as a class. As anarchists, we are happy to do our bit in organising and helping others to organise for more effective resistance. Your focusing on the intricate details of how self-employed workers fit into class struggle dynamics, although academically interesting, misses the bigger picture and ignores the massive scale of capitalist exploitation of the working class as a whole.

Belfast

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you talking about posessions (toothbrush, clothes, personal audio equipment etc) or land, factories, forests etc?

Because there are distinctions between posessions and property.

'Property' under an anarchist society would operate under different social conventions. Instead of being utilised at the whim of an individual, it would be allocated according to how the local community would like to see it used.

Instead of an industrial factory being owned by a bunch of shareholders, it would be owned by the workers and community.

There are lots of advantages to this and some disadvantages.

I am not sure that anarchists and libertarians should be in conflict we should concentrate on our common enemies Statists and Authoratians.

I wonder from a libertarian point of view can land be considered property in that it has not been made by any ones labour?

Perhaps usage of land may be more important that direct ownership by an individual or organisation.

When the Mormans arrived in what is now Salt lake city the church owned all the land. It was divide out between the people to use. if you did not use it to produce some thing useful you lost the right to use it and someone else was allowed to use it.


I like the idea of Free-market anarchism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism but in the absence of a central government however minimal,who would it be possible to stop a well armed group creating one by force?

Lockstep

I always thought the difference between Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalists was that Libertarians were minarchists whereas A-C believed in no state at all.

Open for correction there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

headmuzik wrote: »

The taxi example is an interesting one. On the one hand, you are providing a valuable service by ferrying people to and fro in your car. It makes intuitive sense that you should be remunerated for this work. But on the other hand, your ability to provide this service is dependent on the fact that you own or have access to car, while the clients of your service do not (or at least not at the time which they use your service). Thus you are remunerated not just for the work performed in bringing someone from A to B, but can also make a profit based on the "rental" of the space on the seat in your vehicle. This is a charge based on your ownership of the car, not on the work performed. The client is paying "rent" to receive your "permission" to sit in your car while you drive them from A to B. So there is both an exploitative property relation, and a less problematic (but still not ideal) market exchange relation for serviced rendered.

An alternative economic system like anarcho-communism which incorporated more participatory social planning would likely provide some form of taxi services as a response to social demand. These services could be provided freely in a moneyless economy or remunerated based on effort and sacrifice in economies following a model similar to parecon.
Ref : http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/zpareconfaq.htm

Such a system could remunerate the effort of driving the passenger from A to B, but remove the exploitative property "rent" and the other inequities that result from market exchange relations.

Thanks for providing an example. A general questions for you or anyone?

do all countries have to adopt the system at the same time? I'd suggest it wouldnt work in isolation as the trading with the rest of the world would fall down, where would Ireland gets its cars and airplanes from?. On the other hand a Libertarian approach would be self supporting as it would be able to trade

as for the example be it a taxi or an airline it seems as if the "hardware" appears from nowhere. Alot of decisions have to get made before you see the airplane or the car. How much materials to be mined? factories, R&D etc. I just cant see how one group or country can command scarce resources from outside the group without trading. Once one good is traded for another you're back to natural money?

Joycey

Thanks for the constructive reply.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK thats fair enough, but suppose I can demonstrate to you that it is unsustainable for everybody in the world to "own" a private suburban home, let alone a massive mansion, then wouldnt that qualify as not leaving "enough and as good", to put it in Locke's (or is it Nozick himself ) vague terminology, thus rendering ownership of such a home a violation of my individual rights?

This is another problem I have with many libertarians, a very specific interpretation of principles im not sure I agree with in the first place is necessary to maintain the kind of society you are trying to promote.

To not cause harm is an exceptionally vague and openended qualification. As you can see, it is possible for me to object to private education, healthcare, home ownership, pretty much everything on these grounds. This necessitates a justification of each and every one of these institutions from anybody proposing that they be in existence. As far as I can see, most discourse from the libertarian side tends to assume that the necessary arguments have already been made with regard to each of these instances, and that all that is left is simply the implimentation of their ideology. Even were I to accept the axioms from which this ideology is derived, a massive burden of proof still rests on those attempting to convince me of the harmless nature of each individual instance of private ownership and what it entails for every human which is affected by it.

These are not aggregate abstractions at all; a table, for instance, is a singular concrete entity.

Yes they are . On two counts:

1. There is no single description of what it is to be a table which is consistent with every single instantiation of the category of table. For instance, not every table has 4 legs, not every table has a flat surface etc etc. This is all the more the case when we talk about an outright abstraction, or relation of two or more things, such as property. When we refer to the category of table, we are referring to the aggregation of all the instantiations we have experienced. I think its Wittgenstein that put forward that idea first, he talks about family resemblences and typical types rather then Plato's ideal forms.

2. Even within an object where it is agreed that the thing is a table, we are only referring to an aggregate of matter which comprises the table. It is only because our minds comprehend things by means of aggregate abstractions that the object appears as persisting over time.

This is why we hear so much exhortation to sacrifice our individual well-being for "the common good."

But do you not recognise that if we were to reduce every human in a given society to a dot, and over time we examine how well the society (or collection of functionally interdependant humans in other words) does in comparison to the collection of dots as a whole, that if a society does well, any individual dot will tend to do well, thus allowing the general rule of thumb to be made that what is good for society is good for the individual members of society?

I mean, this doesnt even begin to justify an individual being sacraficed for society, but you are acting like this is some new evil which has emerged along with the development of the state. Humans evolved (possibly what only seems to be) altruistic behaviour long before they did centralised authorities which exert the control which you so much oppose. The state is (along with many other things) an attempt to institutionalise this tendency.

Fair enough. But I don't believe that any action is justified if it restricts individual freedoms. Politicians will argue that "If you only give up X freedoms, you will attain Y in terms of security, equality, etc." I don't ever want to live in a world like that. So I can weigh the criteria all day, but I'm still going to come out in favour of freedom.

Right. I think far and away the biggest point I disagree with you on is your notion of freedom (and possibly rights). I think it might be the case that I have as radical a desire for human freedom as you, but that my conception of what it is to be free is a lot more radical then yours.

It seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the dynamics of human agency to maintain that anything other then a mere token of "consent" exists when
1. a limited number of options is available in the first place
2. you only allow purely direct, physical coercion to be recognised as tempering freedom
3. one party has a concentration of a resource (say money) and another has nothing other then something they need slightly less then what the first party demands from them.

To give an example: a prostitute with three dependant kids, a violent pimp boyfriend, a $60 a day heroin habit and a criminal record. Now Im assuming you think that when she goes out every day to sell the only thing she has which is considered to be worth any money (because simply being human isnt enough in an entirely capitalist system), that she is freely giving her consent, and as a result there is nothing wrong with this.

It actually feels rediculous that I even have to elaborate on what appears to be an entirely self evident absence of all but the barest scrap of freely given choice when she goes out on the street, but it seems like you dont intuitively recognise that she is all but forced to sell her body. How can you honestly maintain that in a society where no care is offered to her that she is choosing not to start her own software company say, or become a tennis coach, or a successfull lawyer? Or, to extend her situation to the rest of society, how can you say that her kids have any chance of attaining these things?

Now I hope the fact that she is one of the more extreme positions on the spectrum of freedom to succeed in a capitalist society, but nonetheless it should be apparent that this spectrum exists for everyone, and that unless we care for those at the bottom, who do not have the option to become lawyers or whatever, their lack of choice will simply be perpetuated. Your whole ideology rests on the assumption that we are all free to achieve anything in society (which is attainable by our genetically given talents) and that it is by choice that these people utterly fail to "succeed". I hope I have demonstrated that notion to be absurd.

Because entrepreneurship is never valued in collectivist societies.

But you assume that the only way something can be valued is for the person to be given money out of it... And surely there are ways for a person to be remunerated materially but with a less absolutist form then entirely free market capitalism?

Ever notice the paucity of innovation in statist societies?

What do you mean? We are currently living in a statist society in your terms arent we? If you think that there is a paucity in a statist society, what exactly is your point of comparison?

Incidentally, I was reading/listening to something the other day (ive come across the idea before though) that actually big developments/breakthroughs are not made through one person having a brainwave or whatever, but through collaborative enterprises. Cant remember where I found it now but il post it when I do.

I'm not denying that some people get wealthy through luck.... but for every such person, there are many others who made their money through being hard-working, innovative, and creative.

Clearly you didnt read the article . The fact that you are creative is not something you chose, therefore you cannot be held morally responsible for it, and as a result you dont deserve to be remunerated materially for it. Or so the argument goes anyway, read the article and judge for yourself, I found it got me thinking about the issue anyway, even though I dont agree with many of the different positions in relation to the information put forward in that account.

Sorry, but this attitude is what I detest most about the collectivist mindset. We can't have private schools—even though you acknowledge that they provide superior education—because a two-tier system would be harmful to those who don't go to the private school? So everyone should get a mediocre education?

But they only provide a superior education to those that can afford them. This is what I oppose.

To go back to the whole moral luck thing, even to take your conception of choice, which is far too simple in my view, a kid isnt capable of choosing their parents means, right? So why should they be put at a disadvantage in the capitalist society as a result of something they havent chosen? No true meritocracy (which is one of the goals of your system) can exist where equality of oppurtunity is not equal. Education is about the most important influence on your chances of success so harm is caused to a child who is only allowed access to sub standard education, and the overall health of those individuals within the system are harmed due to the loss of a true meritocracy.

just so that everyone can be "equal"?

Not "equal", in the way you seem to think I mean it. How could everyone end up "equal" anyway, we are all born with different talents/capacities, so its not as if Im trying to turn everyone into carbon-copy automatons or something. Equality of oppurtunity is necessary for a true meritocracy to exist, supposedly the entire point of the economic system which you propose.

Yes, but there live in this country many people who do not speak English, and who do not share my religion—but I am still expected to support them financially, educate their children, etc., because they are members of "society."

Absolutely, some of them probably clean the toilets where you work, and do all the other sh1t jobs that you have the means and the available option not to do, because that is the best option available to them. You are paying for their childrens' education so that your children may benefit from the revolutionary advances in cancer treatment which their children are able to provide due to the benefits afforded by their non-substandard level of education, and which, had you not have provided a small percentage of your income, would not have been available because they would have been cleaning the same toilets as their parents.

Not at all. I accept that there are communities. I know many people in my local community. I know nobody in County Kerry. So in what sense are a Kerryman and I part of the same "society"?

Ah your not serious are you? That is absolutely rediculous. You oppose society on the grounds that it is an aggregate abstraction, but see "community" as a legitimate description of the world? Get off the stage :pac:

I'm quite happy with Locke's position on this, and I see no reason to revisit the question as to whether I, or someone else, owns my body. Long gone are the days—in the Western world at least—where a wife's body was defined as a possession of her husband, who could do with it as he wished. The idea of self-ownership is intrinsic to all modern jurisprudence.

Fair enough, I wont debate this point

I don't think the idea of property ownership is non-intuitive at all. Even an infant child understands it—these are my toys, not yours. Even higher mammals understand it—this is my territory, not yours. It is the socialist idea of communal ownership that is counterintuitive.

I'm saying that one cannot be truly free while living under the thumb of a coercive regime. A capitalist state is not necessarily a free one; however, history teaches us that capitalist states are generally more free than socialist or communist alternatives.

Well surely there are more alternatives then simply capitalism vs communism, as instantiated in any society currently in existence. My own conception of a trully socialist society is one in which there is no state, however I dont believe freedom can exist where a heirarchy also exists, and the concentration of power which is implied by the private ownership of some resource necessarily leads to heirarchy, thus rendering true freedom and private ownership of the natural world mutually exclusive.

Rights are natural, inalienable, and self-evident mechanisms

Well they arent self-evident to me . Your assertion that a heirarchy exists within the rights which an individual has is a contradiction of your claim that those rights are inalieble. The two claims are irreconcilable. Either you drop the inalieble, which dissolves the impact of claiming that they are universal and absolute, or else you drop the preferencing of rights over one another, in which case you are left with an absurdity in a situation such as the example you gave.

Ive been making that point for ages now and nobody has ever given me a satisfactory response. Hopefully youl be the first

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

DF , you might enjoy this article on patent rights

http://mises.org/story/3406

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

First of all, there is such a thing as anarcho-capitalism. Wikipedia has an article on it so it must be true

A point to make about "freedom" in relation to the to anarchist ideologies. In anarcho-capitalism people would be free to acquire some land, get a group going and set up a "commune." Effectively an anarcho-socialist grouping within the over arching anarcho-capitalism group. People in anarcho-capitalism would be free do do community service for nothing, if they so choose.

If a group of so called "anarcho capitalists" pooled their resources and bought land to set up a commune, then wouldn't that land be defaco socially owned?
If it was all owned by one or more individuals, there would be an immediate heirarchy where the society would be divided into landlords and tenants and te landlord could evict anyone who didn't agree with his ideology... not much freedom there (except for the landowners). Instead of living under the thumb of a state, you live under the thumb of a private ideologue.

However the same could not be said of anarcho-socialism. In your system people are forced to give away their possessions, they are forced to live under the economic rules you set, they are forced to work for no profit. They are forbidden from getting material reward. So surely in this case anarcho-capitalism is "freer" because it can accommodate both systems?

no they wouldn't. There is no coersion, my kind of society could only arise out of mutual agreement and the people who live there would have full rights to participate in the decision making process and put their point of view forward in a democratic fashion.

One other point. I understand Anarchism to be the movement towards getting rid of the state. Andrew Heywood describes it as "an ideology that is defined by the central belief that political authority in all its from, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary." Question: how does the current state differ from the "community" you speak of, which is allowed to determine what land is used for what and what people can and cannot do?

Anarchism is not just about oppsing state authority, it's about opposing all forms of heirarchical domination, and it would be very very different. There wouldn't be professional 'representatives' (a ruling class) there wouldn't be economic elites (the capitalist class). Decision making would be bottom up, not top down and the administrators if there were any, would be accountable to the will of the community, not the other way around.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Thanks for the constructive reply.



OK thats fair enough, but suppose I can demonstrate to you that it is unsustainable for everybody in the world to "own" a private suburban home, let alone a massive mansion, then wouldnt that qualify as not leaving "enough and as good", to put it in Locke's (or is it Nozick himself ) vague terminology, thus rendering ownership of such a home a violation of my individual rights?

I agree, we live in a world of scarce resources. trade and work would not be required if we all had our replicators but at a fundamental level all trade is about exchange of scarce resources so the factory owner who owns the biggest house in the town does so because of his abilty to effectively create valuable goods from scarce resourses that have to be bid for in the market.
That he decides to use part of the surpluses to build a vanity house does not effect anyone elses rights. If he is not prudent he will lose everything to someone else who can better command those resourses. If he is making super normal profits more people will replicate his business model and everyone will benefit from the increased competition

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

I agree, we live in a world of scarce resources. trade and work would not be required if we all had our replicators but at a fundamental level all trade is about exchange of scarce resources so the factory owner who owns the biggest house in the town does so because of his abilty to effectively create valuable goods from scarce resourses that have to be bid for in the market.
That he decides to use part of the surpluses to build a vanity house does not effect anyone elses rights. If he is not prudent he will lose everything to someone else who can better command those resourses. If he is making super normal profits more people will replicate his business model and everyone will benefit from the increased competition

No, because there isnt "enough", but more importantly "as good" for every other individual in the world. You have thus deprived the rest of humanity of too much of the scarce resource (in this case land) for your claim of ownership to be justified. And this is under your own conception of legitimate ownership claims.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

No, because there isnt "enough", but more importantly "as good" for every other individual in the world. You have thus deprived the rest of humanity of too much of the scarce resource (in this case land) for your claim of ownership to be justified. And this is under your own conception of legitimate ownership claims.

from a statistical point of view isnt that a weak argument? by definition the supply of large plots of land in a city or town is limited (expensive), so the amount of land tied up in it % wise is tiny. Are the people of Dublin worse off because of Ailesbury road?

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks for clearing that up; but are Libertarianism and Minarchism two seperate ideologies?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hold on a moment, are we living in bizaroworld?

One of the primary reasons for the existance of the state is to enforce private property rights, In fact, many libertarians believe that there ought to be a minimal state with the sole function of protecting property and enforcing contracts.

Now you say that there needs to be a state to enforce the non ownership of property?

Libertarians and so called anarcho capitalists have to go to very great lengths to think up methods of protecting their property that fit in with the rest of their ideology, and they all amount to either a minimal version of the current nation state, or varying types of private security firms (which would behave very similarly to the current oppressive police forces, except they would be essentially mercinaries for hire to those with the most money)


There is no necessity for a state in order to force the non ownership of property. Non ownership of property is the default system, it takes coersion and force to have it any other way.

silverharp

I've read through the posts but I am still cant picture how the left approach is supposed to work here are some questions that may help


no money (in the general sense), how does that work?

if it doesnt go global from day 1 how does the no money no market country trade with the rest of the world?

As the vast majority of people in a western country are middle class I find it hard to believe that they would vote away their property rights? does it not depend on some type of coup?

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

If a group of so called "anarcho capitalists" pooled their resources and bought land to set up a commune, then wouldn't that land be defaco socially owned?

In which setup?
In anarcho-socialism they would apparently be prevented from doing this.
In anarcho-capitalism there would be no need.

Akrasia wrote: »

If it was all owned by one or more individuals, there would be an immediate heirarchy

Apparently, which is why I dont subscribe to anarcho-socialism.

Akrasia wrote: »

There wouldn't be professional 'representatives' (a ruling class) there wouldn't be economic elites (the capitalist class).

This "economic elite" class is pretty wooly. Its something that is open to everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you 'own' a shoebox apartment you are constrained by the rules of the management company on what you can or can not do to your property. You may be prohibited from having loud parties, keeping pets, dealing drugs, altering the structure of the building, putting down wooden floors etc etc etc... There are penalties for breaking these rules which range from fines to eviction.

Your level of freedom in 'owning' an apartment would be very similar to your level of freedom in inhabiting an apartment or house owned collectively.

You seem to have a warped idea that in socialism, you could be forced to share a dorm with 60 other people and eat and wash communally. Thats just comic book stuff.

There are housing associations and cooperatives that operate today where the inhabitants don't own the houses, but they have the same rights to privacy and freedom as any homeowner.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that systems that provide demonstrably superior education and health care do "harm." From the opposing perspective, however, you might consider that the drug rationing and long waiting lists for surgery within public health-care systems do cause demonstrable harm. And what about the many failing public school systems around the world, which suck up billions in taxpayer resources and deliver mediocre educational outcomes in return? Don't they cause harm?

The very purpose of private property and private education and private anything is that it is exclusive. In order for something to be private, it must have the ability to exclude others from using the resource.

You are arguing that basing an entire system around exclusivity is somehow going to increase personal freedom?

Yes, but surely "society" is simply an aggregate of all the individuals within it? Why not start with the concrete individual and move upwards to the abstraction, rather than vice versa?

Because from birth to death, and everywhere in between, humans are interdependent. It is a natural state to cooperate and interact with each other. Individuals are not physically capable of living their whole lives as fullyindependent individuals (for a start, they would never have been conceived, but if you start at birth, then they would die as a very young infant.)

We are who we are because of all the people around us, so selfish individualism is a folly, because if the people around us do badly, then so will we.
We might think that homelesness and poverty are other people's problems, but disadvantage increases crime and violence and that affects everyone.

I don't believe there is any evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that human nature is fundamentally altruistic, or that humans have evolved to exhibit altruistic behavior. Like other higher mammals, humans are fundamentally acquisitive and competitive. And that is the real reason why socialism can never work.

Thats your opinion, but the anthropological evidence is clear that we are a cooperative tribal species, and not an isolationist competitive species. A human by himself is a very vulnerable creature (rambo and chuck norris aside). But when we gather togeher, we can dominate the planet.

The prostitute has made a long series of choices that led up to this situation: She has probably flunked out of the public-school system; she became pregnant and bore three children; she acquired a drug habit and a violent boyfriend; and she committed crimes. Yes, you can say that she has f***ed up her life, and is in a sorry state—but whose fault is that?

Did she choose to be born into poverty? That is a fundamental flaw in your theory, intergenerational poverty will increase because there is no mechanism to redistribute resources to those who have nothing but their bodies to sell (menial manual labour) meanwhile the offspring of upper middle classes are born with assets without ever having to earn them.

She is "forced" to sell her body and commit crimes—why? Surely other women are raising children as single parents without resorting to prostitution, crime, and drugs?

There are lots of women (and single fathers) doing that, but thats because we have a social welfare system that provides them with an income so they don't have to work or steal.

Regardless of the bad choices the mother makes, the children are innocent victims, they are getting the worst possible start in life. Welfare programs are there to try and cushion the children against neglectful or incapable parenting. In your society, there would only be charities to do this task, in an anarcho communist society, great care would be taken to address the source of these problems and to give the children, and the parents every opportunity to become full productive members of the community.

You assume that throwing welfare at "those at the bottom" somehow helps them break out of the cycle of failure and underachieving. It doesn't. It does quite the opposite. For instance, a study in the USA showed that a $200/month increase in welfare to single mothers increased the teen pregnancy rate by 150 percent. A classic instance of welfare actually causing the problem it claims to be solving.

Yeah, but that's not an argument against anarcho communism. They are making a choice in that situation between going on welfare, and going to work in a rubbish underpaid job that they don't find satisfying or challenging for the rest of their lives until they die.

We would structure society differently, the choices would be different.

Oh, well, I guess anarcho-socialism is the end of the line for artists, composers, novelists, poets, filmmakers, etc.

Why is that then? Are you suggesting that artists are all in it for the money?

That clearly doesn't bear out the facts as the vast majority of artists around the world don't make very much money and often have to work second jobs to pay the bills.

I would suggest that in an anarchist society there would be much much more art and culture as people would have more free time and wouldn't be forced to choose between being surviving and pursuing their art.

I can go outside right now and walk around in a community of people who know each other, care for each other, and have genuine bonds. "Society" is very different. The government will tell a worker in London that he should pay higher taxes to keep people on Northern Ireland on the dole, because it's for the "good of society." Why should the Londoner be expected to care?

That point is irrelevant to this discussion. Are you falling back to arguing against the state and/or state socialism?

Please remember that this thread is about debating between anarchism and libertarianism.

I've asked this before—but in a anarchist socialist society where there is no state, what is going to happen when individuals lay claim to property? What is going to happen when Farmer Joe has an oversupply of apples in his orchard and sets up a stall, selling them? Without a state, how are you going to prevent the natural order of private property and markets from re-emerging?

As I've already said, private property is not the natural order. It needs to be manufactured, and then defended from others who also want to use it. If Farmer Joe wants exclusive ownership of a field, he would need some mechanism to defend that ownership, and if he was surrounded by anarchists who would refuse to recognise his 'property rights' he might get very very frustrated (and possibly violent)

headmuzik

So how would you classify someone such as Murray Rothbard?

As an anti-state liberal.

The exclusion of "land and buildings" as legitimate "personal possessions" is due to the fact that land and buildings are generally used by more than one person, and if one person owns the building and rents it to others, this would constitute exploitation. The same applies with ground rent for land. The point is to exclude exploitative economic and social relations and to ensure that everyone has a say in the decisions that affect them. If you do not have an ownership share (or the equivalent) in something that you use, then you will not get an equitable say in something that affects you quite directly.
If you live in a one-bedroom apartment for instance, neither you nor anyone else is entitled to "OWN" the entire apartment block but you are entitled to what you might call an "ownership share" of that particular apartment since you are the one using it and it cannot be used to exploit others. Insofar as what you do to that apartment does not affect others in the apartment block, of course you should be free to do with it what you like. An anarchist society will not be dictating the colour of people's wallpaper!

An anarchist society would use social planning to allocate for human needs including shelter (houses) and the land thereon. For one thing, this would ensure communities were allowed to determine their owns needs in terms of facilities, schools, parks, recreational areas etc.

what if the computer was being used to run a profitable website, or to write computer programs for sale?

The problem here is that you are asking questions about changes in the social and political idea of "property" in the overall context of an assumption that capitalism and the market will continue on much as before. At least, thats what you seem to be suggesting since you are talking about a "profitable website" (profits would not exist under anarchism) and selling computer programs (which would require a market).
An anarchist society would construct economic systems which allocated goods and services without the robbery of profit-making, or the inequities of market exchanges.

What are some concrete "manufactured articles" that can be used to "control and exploit others"? Are we talking about things like guns?

Of course, guns be used to control and exploit others. But so can buildings, either residential or industrial, machinery or almost any other productive tool you might think of. If the social relationship is a hierarchical and exploitative one based on ownership by few and use by many, then you have a problem.

So how will currency, land, buildings, productive tools, ideas, inventions, etc., be handled in your socialist-anarchist world? If I write a novel, I can't copyright it? If I come up with an invention, I can't patent it? I can't borrow money from a bank and buy land, buildings, and tools to start a business?

There's a lot of stuff on the internet that you can read to learn a bit about this stuff - I will try to go through as much as I can but I think you are still missing the big picture view - I am not talking about minor modifications to the capitalist structure of property relations or slight rejigs to the way the market economy functions. I am not talking about passing a couple of laws here and there to stop people from borrowing money or copyrighting things. The sort of changes required for an anarchist society require social revolution - a transformative change in the economic, social and political relationships within society.

A "currency" implies market economics - not a runner. Idea's and invention would not be copyrighted because no enforcement mechanism would be in force to prevent duplications or punish them. I don't know if yo've heard of "creative commons" or "copyleft" - these are alternative systems that allow the copying of works with attribution to the originator of the idea but not necessarily the provision of remunerative royalties. Maybe you think that innovation will not occur without monetary reward but there is plenty of historical empirical evidence to the contrary.

Who is actually going to be out on the streets driving drunk people home from the pubs at 3 a.m. on a Sunday morning?

Maybe people who would like to be driven home from the pubs at 3 a.m. on a saturday morning?

On class struggle:

It simply doesn't account for the complexity of modern economic life.

As I said, I do think there are significant gradations between the classes. But I think the fundamentals are sound. Do you think that class struggle doesn't really exist? Do you think "partnership" is real? Do you think employers and workers have similar interests? What complexities exist that you think damage the usefulness of the ruling class/working class analysis?

Well, this is what Marx said 140 years ago. We're still waiting!

Maybe if less people were waiting and more people got organised, we might be a bit closer?

Likewise, I'm not attracted to the "collectivist" vision either - I would tend more towards communist-anarchism.
Anarchist FAQ:

The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." [Anarchism, p. 295] Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

In which setup?
In anarcho-socialism they would apparently be prevented from doing this.
In anarcho-capitalism there would be no need.


Apparently, which is why I dont subscribe to anarcho-socialism.



This "economic elite" class is pretty wooly. Its something that is open to everyone.

Sorry, I don't understand your points, are you saying that you are in favour of heirarchy? and dont like anarchism because it doesn't divide people into landlords and tennants?

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your points, are you saying that you are in favour of heirarchy? and dont like anarchism because it doesn't divide people into landlords and tennants?

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy. You talk of the "elite capitalist class" as if it were some untouchable group of people. The fact is however that anyone can set up their business, employ people and become dirty conniving capitalists. Even 15 year olds have been known in Ireland to set up internet businesses and sell them for over a million euro at the age of 17.

Socialists' problem however lies with people being employed, I believe. An employer is exploiting the labor of the workers. But the workers do have a choice. In Ireland we even have free education right up to third level, so people who are lazy, get a job in a factory and start moaning about the bosses nice BMW are just being bitter about that fact they were not ambitious.

So it is my belief that hierarchy in Ireland is made up.

Now, back on topic. As I said, I think Anarcho-socialism is a bit of contradiction. Socialism will always require some form of coercion. Otherwise me and five of my friends will start trading things we have made (such as toys, computer programs), using buttons as currency. But this is apparently not allowed in the Anarcho-socialist society. So who stops them?

What happens when they take it a step further and decide to completely disengage themselves from the community. They create a "state in exile," where they grow food and trade amongst themselves for material wealth. Of course the community owns that land they live on, so they arent free to live in their own community? But who enforces this? Will a group of socialists come along with guns and force them off of their "state-in-exile"?

So here you have created a hierarchy - the socialist majority over the material-demanding minority.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just cause you state it doesn't make it a fact.

Some animals are individualistic and defend territories, other animals are nomadic and other animals are social and work together to provide for each others needs without any individual ownership.

Your absolutist description of animals as hoarders and 'property owners' is simply wrong.

The 'entirety of human history' certainly does not show that people have always had private property. people evolved to live in tribal communities where they shared food and shelter. Up until the enclosure acts people shared farm land.

Private exclusive ownership of land is a relatively new feature of human society and most of that land was acquired illegitimately through violence, theft and war.

Can you name any society historically where non-ownership of property was the "default"?

Native americans for one.

The reality is that whenever people have been prevented from owning property, it has always been by the legislative fiat of the coercive state. Those who have been barred from owning property—serfs, slaves, Catholics, Jews, women, people under communism—have often been subjugated underclasses, marked by dispossession and dependency. As such, progressive liberals over the centuries have fought to extend the rights of property ownership to all.

You're framing the argument to force only one answer, You say people are 'prevented from owning property' but there were many historical examples of property being owned in common thus 'preventing' an individual from taking it as exclusive private property. is that 'coersive'?
Anarchism is not about preventing people from owning posessions, it's about owning everything in common.

Historically speaking, property ownership is the very hallmark of the "freeman." Look up the word, and you'll see the centuries-long close association between freedom and property rights.

thats because the alternative to being a 'freeman' was being a slave. If you have two choices, to either work someone else's land for a pittance, or to work your own land (and have others work for you), then of course the preferred option is to own your own land. But this does not discount the third option, to own the land in common and to work cooperatively with others and share the rewards.

History shows that the only way to prevent property ownership from naturally reoccurring is through the militaristic power of the state. As soon as state authority disappeared, people would seize property, call it theirs, and fight to protect it. And what does the anarcho-socialist do then?

If people want to fight to protect their own plot of land and refuse to engage with others, then I wouldn't try and stop them, unless they claimed ownership of land that others were already using and tried to force them to pay rent. That is an act of domination, not freedom, and anarchists would fight to liberate those who are being oppressed.

Its hard to imagine that without the state to imprison them, that tenants would voluntarily side with the landlord given the choice of paying rent, or sharing ownership. Libertarians would try and enforce 'contracts' that the tenants may have signed to pay rent breach of which may carry criminal penalties, but how is that more free than a state fining or imprisoning them for failure to pay rent?

To be honest, I don't see the difference between being oppressed by a landowner, or being oppressed by the state, except that the state government is at least nominally accountable through an election process, while property rights are seen as absolute in a libertarian system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

Anarchism is not about preventing people from owning posessions, it's about owning everything in common.

Thats a contradiction. If I want to posses certain things, like land, I will be prevented from doing so due to you forcing me to own things in common.

Your system assumes a change in human mindframe, where everyone wants to share things but the reality is they don't.

On the other hand, libertarianism at least allows people with diverting mindframes to live in harmony. Those who live for profit can live alongside those who live as part of a socialist community. Anarcho-socialism does not afford such freedom of choice. Everyone has to live in the community.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy.

I'm sorry but thats simply not true. It's the clearest kind of heirarchy imaginable. Bosses and workers, landlords and tenants. Owners and renters. The owners make the rules, the renters follow the rules.

If you don't do what your employer tells you, you get fired, if you don't do what your landlord tells you, you get evicted.

How is that a conspiracy theory?

Socialists' problem however lies with people being employed, I believe. An employer is exploiting the labor of the workers. But the workers do have a choice. In Ireland we even have free education right up to third level, so people who are lazy, get a job in a factory and start moaning about the bosses nice BMW are just being bitter about that fact they were not ambitious.

thats very judgemental.

People have different circumstances that give them different opportunities.
There are very many hard working people out there who have very little wealth to show for it (people who choose to care for their sick relatives, for example, work extremely hard for long hours providing an essential service for practically zero reward.

A recent study has shown that people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have work really hard save money and go back to education and managed to get a university education see almost no increase in their salaries compared with people from middle class backgrounds with exactly the same qualifications. The difference between these two categories of people? The education came easier to the middle class child, and they had access to contacts and the self confidence to get high paid jobs compared to the harder working individuals from a different background, but their rewards are much higher.

So it is my belief that hierarchy in Ireland is made up.

Because a small percentage of people are able to move between classes?

You could say that because there is a National Lottery, everyone has a chance to become a millionaire.

Now, back on topic. As I said, I think Anarcho-socialism is a bit of contradiction. Socialism will always require some form of coercion. Otherwise me and five of my friends will start trading things we have made (such as toys, computer programs), using buttons as currency. But this is apparently not allowed in the Anarcho-socialist society. So who stops them?

What stops them is the fact that if you demand money for a service, there is nobody to enforce that demand.

Without someone to enforce contracts, commercial transactions would not be tenable.

You could barter all the buttons you like, there would be nobody forbidding you from doing so, but you might have a hard time trading them with someone who doesn't accept them as a valid currency.

What happens when they take it a step further and decide to completely disengage themselves from the community. They create a "state in exile," where they grow food and trade amongst themselves for material wealth. Of course the community owns that land they live on, so they arent free to live in their own community? But who enforces this? Will a group of socialists come along with guns and force them off of their "state-in-exile"?

So here you have created a hierarchy - the socialist majority over the material-demanding minority.

I don't see anarchists having any real problem if a bunch of libertarians want to set up their own 'state' as long as they didn't try force their will on any anarchists, it would probably be quite amusing to watch their quaint outdated tradition, a curiosity, like the Amish community.

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats simply not true. It's the clearest kind of heirarchy imaginable. Bosses and workers, landlords and tenants. Owners and renters. The owners make the rules, the renters follow the rules.

Whats to stop the renters from becoming the owners; the workers from becoming the employers?

Akrasia wrote: »

thats very judgemental.

Not really. A trait of human beings is that they are sometimes bitter of those who have been successful. More often than not relative success is due to ambition; thus being bitter towards success is being bitter towards ones own lack of ambition.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are very many hard working people out there who have very little wealth to show for it (people who choose to care for their sick relatives, for example, work extremely hard for long hours providing an essential service for practically zero reward.

Agreed. But imagine everyone were to to this. The economy would collapse as about a fifth of the population would be tied up minding another fifth. Instead people could get a normal job and pay for a nursing home etc.

Akrasia wrote: »

A recent study has shown that people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have work really hard save money and go back to education and managed to get a university education see almost no increase in their salaries compared with people from middle class backgrounds with exactly the same qualifications.

And your solution is to penalise those who are born into middle-class homes. In the same vein as your education proposal. Force everyone to get a mediocre education.

Akrasia wrote: »

Because a small percentage of people are able to move between classes?

A small percentage? Everyone is equally entitled to start a business.

Akrasia wrote: »

You could say that because there is a National Lottery, everyone has a chance to become a millionaire.

Yet there is no element of luck in capitalism. Its not random who can start their own enterprises - everyone can.

Akrasia wrote: »

You could barter all the buttons you like, there would be nobody forbidding you from doing so, but you might have a hard time trading them with someone who doesn't accept them as a valid currency.

Well once a group of people subscribe to it, and agree to accept it as legal tender. So you concede that the capitalist market will be in fact allowed in anarch-socialism?

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't see anarchists having any real problem if a bunch of libertarians want to set up their own 'state' as long as they didn't try force their will

Heaven forbid you would be forced to be allowed do what ye want. In a libertarian society, what is stopping you an 5,000 communists buying lots of land, building a town and setting up a commune proper?

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy. You talk of the "elite capitalist class" as if it were some untouchable group of people. The fact is however that anyone can set up their business, employ people and become dirty conniving capitalists. Even 15 year olds have been known in Ireland to set up internet businesses and sell them for over a million euro at the age of 17.

And what if there is an equivalent 15 year old kid who cant read, who has a conviction for joy riding and is out taking pills a couple of days every week. Surely you recognise that that child hasnt "chosen" (in the sense of it being possible to hold them morally responsible) to not be able to read etc, and yet you believe they should not be suported by society because they are now "choosing" not to start up their own software company :rolleyes:

Seriously, you need a reality check.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh come on, nobody is in favour of that, that's such a straw man argument that it's a genuine fire hazard.

You insist on portraying anarchist society as some kind of haphazard free for all, when there would be complex social arrangements to govern how the resources are used.

But who does own the houses? They are not simply owned collectively, by everyone in society, are they?

There are a number of ways resources could be collectively owned, one example is through housing cooperatives similar to how it's described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative though suitably adjusted to take into account the different economic mechanisms of an anarchist society.

So, in your socialist world, nobody would be restricted from using any resource, or accessing any service? That means unlimited free petrol, electricity, gas, coal, phone service, broadband internet, etc., for everyone?

No, there would be restrictions, it's not a free for all as I already said, but these restrictions would be decided in a democratic manner and run for the benefit of the community at large, and not just for absentee landlords or distant capitalist 'shareholders'

I disagree completely. Humans are instinctively selfish and individualistic. They will cooperate only when it serves their interests to do so, and have few qualms in cheating and defrauding the collective when it suits them.

That's a very negative view of humanity. You seem unable to comprehend that human nature is flexible and there is no such thing as any single 'intrinsic' human trait.

people will adapt to the circumstances. If we build a system that rewards corruption and greed then that's the kind of behaviour that will flourish.

If we build a society where cooperation and mutual aid is rewarded, then I think that would be a much nicer place to live.

I am not naive, I fully expect that there will always be people who will try and take advantage of other people, but that is why I am in favour of limiting the power that any individual can exert over his neighbours through democracy and the elimiation of private property.

Have you ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma game, from economic game theory?

I am intimately aware of that theory and it fully supports socialist anarchism rather than individualism.
If both parties agree to share all the time then they will both be much better off in the long term. If one person cheats, he is better off. If both people cheat, they both do very badly. The game shows that there are a lot of people who will cheat out of fear and greed.
The problem with that game is that it is manufactured to exclude memory and knowledge of how the other person has behaved in the past.

If you introduce memory to the game, the people who cooperate will always cooperate with each other and these people will all benefit. The people who cheat will do well for a while, but as their reputation spreads, they will do very badly.

Cooperation works when people trust each other. Anarchism tries to promote cooperation through the rules of the game. Capitalism tries to promote competition, One system is inherently made up of winners and losers, the other system is dependent on sharing prosperity.
People will behave according to the rules of the game.

You seem to envision humankind as a very large beehive. In your view, individuals (bees) are so weak, vulnerable, and ineffectual that they almost don't merit recognition qua individuals; the collective (hive) is strong, powerful, and dominant. But was William Shakespeare a collective? Was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a collective? Was Albert Einstein a collective?

You seem fixated on 'greatness'. to the extent that you ignore the billions of people out there who just want to live peaceful ordinary lives. Sure, individuals have a lot to contribute, and geniuses are extremely valuable, and would still play a role in an anarchist society, but even these geniuses are a reliant on society. Who taught Shakespeare how to read? Who helped develop the language he spoke? Ordinary everyday people, on whom everything else rests.

Are you saying that children from poor families can't go to school, get educations, work hard, and acquire wealth and property? In reality, the biggest factor contributing to what you term "intergenerational poverty" is social welfare, which disincentivizes education and work, and perpetuates cycles of dependency and misery.

Perhaps, and doubtlessly welfare does play a role in marginalising people, but that is not an argument against Anarchism.
Welfare marginalises people in a capitalist system because it creates a poverty trap where people make a living without working, and lose those benefits if they get a job. the longer they stay in that situation, the less employable they become and so become reliant on welfare to survive. This is a flaw of capitalism as much as the welfare system itself.

The alternative of capitalism without any welfare safety net would lead to much greater misery and suffering than the current system as people who are unable to work, or unemployable (due to an surplus of workers, or a lack of marketable skills) would have no way of supporting themselves.

What would you suggest that these people, with no money and no income, do in your free society?

Aren't people going to work in your anarchist society? If not, how will all the free resources mentioned above be provided?

People will work and contribute what they can to maintain their standard of life, but the work will be organised and allocated differently

And I completely disagree with this. A two-year-old child may not be capable of reading Hayek or Ayn Rand, but she completely understands the meaning of "my toys." The desire to possess, to own, is absolutely intrinsic to human nature, and only an utter utopian would deny this evident reality.

We are not 2 year olds, we are supposed to be Adults.
A 2 year old child also understands the concept of sharing. Have you ever had to endure a small child constantly handing you bits of his soggy biscuit to share with you?

Why do you choose the possessive aspect of a developing personality and ignore the will to share?

Look at the ape, a close ancestor to man. Apes are highly territorial and hierarchical. To suggest that they are "social and work together to provide for each other's needs without any individual ownership" is nonsense -- they frequently fight over territory, food, and females, and build "private" nests in trees that are their exclusive domain. Potential intruders often get pelted with stones and branches. This doesn't exactly dovetail with your collectivist vision.

I really have to stop you there there is no such animal as "the ape" There are many different species of primates, and these have different character traits but are usually highly social and cooperative creatures. I really don't know where you get your zoooligical information but it's woefully inadequate

You're really now trying to argue that private land ownership is a feature of the modern era? What about the private land ownership records found from the earliest periods of Egyptian history? What about Abraham's purchase of Ephron's field for 400 shekels, as recorded in the book of Genesis? It's a complete Marxist myth that there were no private land markets prior to the modern world. Land has been owned and used privately since antiquity.

And its also been shared and owned collectively.

Are these the same Native Americans who fought to drive settlers off "their" territory?

There was conflict when the settlers started fencing off the land killing them and wiping out all the wildlife yes.

A community having a local territory is not the same as private ownership of land by the way. And a tribe or society protecting their ancestral hunting grounds from hostile invasion by foreign monarchs is perfectly understandable, Anarchists would do the same.

As in the Soviet kolkhozy? But are you aware that Stalin's agricultural "reforms" drastically reduced the production of grain and livestock -- so much that they produced major famines? I wouldn't worry about there being too many "rewards" to share, since collectivizing agriculture has always spelt disaster for any nation that has tried it.

Are you calling us stalinists again?

So you're saying that if a group of people moved to a completely unused territory, you would permit them to start up their own market-based economy from scratch? And you would respect their autonomy? What would you do if other people decided to move from your collectivist society into the free-market society? What would you do if your anarcho-socialists started to complain, pointing out the far higher levels of productivity and living standards across the way? Would you let them join the free-market system too?

If the people in the anarchist society decided democratically to introduce markets and private ownership, then there would be markets and private ownership. (btw, I'm not just talking about a majority vote by the way, there are other forms of democracy)

The 'libertarians' would eventually turn into an oppressive state however as they would inevitably try to force their 'property rights' on the anarchists. (this would be inevitable if the local anarchists who don't believe in copyright started reprinting 'copyrighted materials' or travelling on 'private land' without paying the toll.

There would be conflict because capitalism is violent and expansionary and it inherently limits the freedom of others

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apart from the fact that I disagree entirely with your conclusion on the basis, among many other things, that this child is simply the most recent instance of a cycle which has probably been perpetuating itself for much longer then 1 generation, and is symptomatic of society as a whole, id like to know who you think is responsible for that child if they have no parents? Or what if their parents are not capable of taking care of them (drug problems, chronic illness etc)?

I mean, you seem like a fairly decent person from what ive seen of your posts on boards, ive seen you give good advice to a few people, why would you want to institutionalise dickheaded selfishness if you dont exhibit it as an individual in such a disconnected setting as the internet, where it cant (except possibly extremely indirectly) benefit your chances of breeding or otherwise achieve personal gain?

Soldie

headmuzik wrote: »

The exclusion of "land and buildings" as legitimate "personal possessions" is due to the fact that land and buildings are generally used by more than one person [...]

What about a Nintendo Wii?