True Freedom and True Heroism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]

I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.

You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.

Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]

privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.

exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.

In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.

But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).

If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.

Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[/quote]

The “exploitation of labor” is the conclusion of economic theories that have been debunked centuries ago.

There is no such thing, other than slavery and servitude which both have coercive elements and are not based on mutual consent.

However, it has provided an excellent excuse for socialists for centuries now to be violent themselves, after all they “only defended themselves against the systemic violence of capitalism”.

[/quote]

debunked by whom? do you meen burgeois economists?

82

[quote]Erasmus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…how many people were there on earth 2500 years ago? A couple of hundred million? The increase in scale necessitates a governing body. Granted, those bodies should not be the size they’re now, but they’re needed nonetheless. I ask again Erasmus, how do your propose we go from our current system to yours?[/quote]

Sorry I didn’t answer the first time.
Why can’t many people live without a government? I don’t think that the number of people justifies a government.
Small government is not better then a big government. Sure the bully will punch you less but the thought behind it’s creation is where my problem is. Ofcourse I would like to live under a small government but my grandgrandgrandchildren then will live under tyrrany.
Governments do what they are good at, that is growing.

Achieving anarchy is only possible in one way in my opinion.
It is very hard and will take many generations.
We need to outgrow the state in our minds. A lot of people I know think they have outgrown religion.

They have outgrown Santa claus, the eastern bunny, toothferry, … The next step is to outgrow another abusive myth.
The neccesity of the state is that myth. To see evil is to reject evil. But I’m not smart or knowledgable enough to talk about things like that.

Achieving liberty through political action is useless. Completely and utterly useless. It has never worked and it will never work.

EDIT: necessary is spelled necessary LOL
[/quote]

…i don’t disagree with you to an extent, but i’m simply not sure how some aspects of current society is handled in yours. I take it there’ll be an unregulated free-market? How will laws be introduced, enacted and enforced? What’s the courtsystem like? Will there be a police force, and will it be private?

Your new society relies on the maturity and equality of all people, right? I simply don’t have the faith in humanity yet to think we’ll be able to pull that off. Large corporations with limitless funds will be able to control the market, and as they gain power they are going to form a powerbase not unlike a government. Will you be able to prevent that from happening, and how?

83

I would argue that anarchy is and has always been present, because there is no higher authority than the state, thus being a state of anarchy.

84

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]

I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.

You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.

Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]

privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.

exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.

In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.

But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).

If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.

Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[/quote]

The “exploitation of labor” is the conclusion of economic theories that have been debunked centuries ago.

There is no such thing, other than slavery and servitude which both have coercive elements and are not based on mutual consent.

However, it has provided an excellent excuse for socialists for centuries now to be violent themselves, after all they “only defended themselves against the systemic violence of capitalism”.

[/quote]

debunked by whom? do you meen burgeois economists?[/quote]

No, the labor theory of value is self evidently absurd and is held by no serious economist.

Austrian, Keyneasian, Chicago-ites, you name them, they all know it is nonsense.

If you do not believe me, dig a hole and fill it up again and then try to find a buyer. If you do not find a buyer the market has obviously failed because you just know who to work out the “value” of this nonexisting hole, dont you?

And that would be before we went into the absurdities of applying the labor theory of value to
software or drugs which cost very little in labor and quite a lot in R&D.

Or maybe you like Heinleins example better, let us say you and a chef have the same ingredients and bith of you make a pie. Will those pies have the same value? Probably not, his will be worth more AND he will have worked less to achieve that.

This theory is just nonsense and just because you never looked into the subjectivity of value and the marginal revolution in economics makes the labor theory of value no more valid than the theory that the easter bunny wills prices into existence.

The very core of your ideology is flawed and if Marx ahd been worth his salt as an economist he could have known that when he wrote his books.

85

[quote]Dabba wrote:
This would most likely prevent the war that you are envisioning. However, let’s suppose that two companies don’t have a prior agreement with each other and they are in opposition over which court to use. Still, even in this situation it doesn’t mean there must be war, since war is not very profitable on the open market.

Some sort of bargaining process may arise, where one company persuades the other to use their court, but they must pay the company a sum of money, so both firms end up happy. So, it may not be confusing and chaotic as one might think.
[/quote]

Ahh I see, so if a high ranking member of a defense company kills my sister, at best I am entitled to monetary compensation? Both firms may end up happy, but justice won’t have been served. So the outcome from this system isn’t even as good as the outcome the state gives me.

And what is my recourse? I can stop paying the defense company. I can probably even convince another 50-100 people to stop paying that defense company. Do you think a large company today would flinch at losing 100 customers? No. So why would a defense company?

[quote]Dabba wrote:
I think that you’re right, however, and one company may try to do this. But the funds that it would need to garner in order to do this would become so costly to its consumers, that they would eventually leave and hire another private company.
[/quote]

And if the company doesn’t let the consumers leave and hire another private company? You are assuming the consumers are able to act in a collective which has much more free capital than the defense corporation.

Even if the consumers had much more capital than the defense company you would still have a battle between defense corporations. I’m imagining a lot of collateral damage; not really a good environment to live in.

Then you have to look at the economics of running a defense corporation.

A company with 1 million customers that handles protection of small geographic area will always be more cost effective than a company that handles 1 million customers located all over the place. By an order of magnitude.

So naturally you will end up with the country split up into geographic based sectors controlled by different defense companies. It would be extremely costly for a defense corporation to provide security on another defense companies ‘turf’. So the defense corporations will be able to use force against the population and provided they don’t use ‘extreme’ force nothing will be done about it. Once again sounding more and more like nation states.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
You also gotta’ realize, that in a free market, the people who would be fighting the war could easily leave one company for another, and if their company does go to war, that company would most likely have to raise the wages of these employees (read: thugs, lol) in order to compensate their potential injury or death. This means higher rates for customers, so again another incentive for the consumers to leave that company.
[/quote]

Once again you are assuming that consumers can simply leave. It makes no sense.

Finally as a general statement: I feel you have been fooled into believing that the world revolves around money.

In truth money is only a desire in that it generally leads to power and grandeur. The very second that raw force leads to more power than money does is the second that raw force is used.

I don’t care about money; I care about power. But there are people with much bigger guns than I have, and they coerce me into not using coercion upon others. And so it makes more sense for me to obtain money as a route to power. These people are the state. The state has a monopoly upon coercion.

It should be obvious to everyone how private defense companies could easily turn into new states.

86

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
…because there is no higher authority than the state…[/quote]

There is no authority higher than natural law.

87

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, how does one argue against a shining example of the perfect system for humankind. Especially since, as admitted here, it only exists as speculation. Made only possible by some far flung future human-being, whose mind has travelled the necessary paths of enlightenment through our future, and Human X’s history. Yeah, you got me convinced.[/quote]

Considering civilization arouse first, then the State followed (or some form of power structure), how can you say it exists only in speculation?

There were communities within the pre-revolutionary North American Colonies that had little if any centralized power. So little to the point that during the Revolutionary War the Brits had no administrative/government buildings to occupy.

You interact with other individuals on a voluntary basis every day. Just look at the your own neighborhood or community you live in.

Why is it so far from the realm of possibility to think that a libertarian society could exist?

*edited

88

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]

I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.

You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.

Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]

privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.

exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.

In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.

But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).

If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.

Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[/quote]

The “exploitation of labor” is the conclusion of economic theories that have been debunked centuries ago.

There is no such thing, other than slavery and servitude which both have coercive elements and are not based on mutual consent.

However, it has provided an excellent excuse for socialists for centuries now to be violent themselves, after all they “only defended themselves against the systemic violence of capitalism”.

[/quote]

debunked by whom? do you meen burgeois economists?[/quote]

No, the labor theory of value is self evidently absurd and is held by no serious economist.

Austrian, Keyneasian, Chicago-ites, you name them, they all know it is nonsense.

If you do not believe me, dig a hole and fill it up again and then try to find a buyer. If you do not find a buyer the market has obviously failed because you just know who to work out the “value” of this nonexisting hole, dont you?

And that would be before we went into the absurdities of applying the labor theory of value to
software or drugs which cost very little in labor and quite a lot in R&D.

Or maybe you like Heinleins example better, let us say you and a chef have the same ingredients and bith of you make a pie. Will those pies have the same value? Probably not, his will be worth more AND he will have worked less to achieve that.

This theory is just nonsense and just because you never looked into the subjectivity of value and the marginal revolution in economics makes the labor theory of value no more valid than the theory that the easter bunny wills prices into existence.

The very core of your ideology is flawed and if Marx ahd been worth his salt as an economist he could have known that when he wrote his books.

[/quote]

you dont convince me. keynesian and austrian are both burgeois economic teories, I dont believe in any of them.

without labour any form of society will fail, its the core of production.

89

There may’ve been little in the way of central authority for far-flung pre-revolutionary communities, but they certainly had their governing bodies. Not to mention they were often nearly, if not outright, homogenous in faith and culture/norms. Shame was a powerful tool for keeping the peace, and reinforcing the kind of morality that makes self-governance even possible.

As far as a libertarian society? That to me is the least likely society capable of existing, for long. Especially in an increasingly secular world. People want their sexual freedom, until they have 3 illegitimate children they can’t afford. They don’t want to have to honor their fathers and mothers, taking care of and supporting them in their old age. Everyone else is suppossed to do that for them. They’ve shiny stuff to buy, parties to attend, drugs to do, and entertainment to devour, after all. We’ve arrived at a point where marriage, thus stable homes, has gone from “till death do you part,” to “until you get bored or irritated.” And, even though the status of marriage has already come to mean so little, we still want to dilute it into some equality social club. Libertarianism is fertile ground for the nanny state. Everyone wants to be a libertarian when the party is still jumping. Celebrating their freedoms without care. It’s the next day, realizing there’s consequences for their behavior, that they begin expecting others to help pick up the pieces.

90

[quote]Sloth wrote:

As far as a libertarian society? That to me is the least likely society capable of existing, for long. Especially in an increasingly secular world. People want their sexual freedom, until they have 3 illegitimate children they can’t afford. They don’t want to have to honor their fathers and mothers, taking care of and supporting them in their old age. Everyone else is suppossed to do that for them. They’ve shiny stuff to buy, parties to attend, drugs to do, and entertainment to devour, after all. We’ve arrived at a point where marriage, thus stable homes, has gone from “till death do you part,” to “until you get bored or irritated.” And, even though the status of marriage has already come to mean so little, we still want to dilute it into some equality social club. Libertarianism is fertile ground for the nanny state. Everyone wants to be a libertarian when the party is still jumping. Celebrating their freedoms without care. It’s the next day, realizing there’s consequences for their behavior, that they begin expecting others to help pick up the pieces. [/quote]

The fertile ground for a nanny state, is the state itself.

I said this previously, and I’m not necessarily directing this at you Sloth, but I wish people would read some literature on libertarianism before making these same arguments over and over again.

91

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

As far as a libertarian society? That to me is the least likely society capable of existing, for long. Especially in an increasingly secular world. People want their sexual freedom, until they have 3 illegitimate children they can’t afford. They don’t want to have to honor their fathers and mothers, taking care of and supporting them in their old age. Everyone else is suppossed to do that for them. They’ve shiny stuff to buy, parties to attend, drugs to do, and entertainment to devour, after all. We’ve arrived at a point where marriage, thus stable homes, has gone from “till death do you part,” to “until you get bored or irritated.” And, even though the status of marriage has already come to mean so little, we still want to dilute it into some equality social club. Libertarianism is fertile ground for the nanny state. Everyone wants to be a libertarian when the party is still jumping. Celebrating their freedoms without care. It’s the next day, realizing there’s consequences for their behavior, that they begin expecting others to help pick up the pieces. [/quote]

The fertile ground for a nanny state, is the state itself.

I said this previously, and I’m not necessarily directing this at you Sloth, but I wish people would read some literature on libertarianism before making these same arguments over and over again.

[/quote]

It doesn’t require reading any literature. I see plainly an ideology that despises the nanny state, yet is embarrased by social/traditional conservatism. If not outright hostile to it. Libertarianism, as I’ve come to see lately, is a thorn in my Conservative side. Before you tear down the nanny state, before you have a populace that will even allow you near it with a pickaxe, you’ll have to win a cultural war first.

You will need a prudent people. A people who raise their own kids in intact homes. Who look after their own parents, in their family home, through their golden years up through their passing. They will have to be a thrifty, but charitable people. They will actually have to know their neighbors. They will put off instant/self gratification for the security of committed arrangements/living. They will rely on private local institutions when they need a helping hand. And, guess what kind of institutions those will most likely be? The same kind that make libertarian eys roll in their heads, as they groan snottily to themselves.

The absence of strong moral traditions and norms begs to be filled with a redistributive central authority. Libertariansim puts the cart before the horse, if it even remembers to bring the horse. You’re not going to get self-governance without prudent, well, self-governance. There’s a cultural war that has to be won first. There’s no getting around it.

92

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

As far as a libertarian society? That to me is the least likely society capable of existing, for long. Especially in an increasingly secular world. People want their sexual freedom, until they have 3 illegitimate children they can’t afford. They don’t want to have to honor their fathers and mothers, taking care of and supporting them in their old age. Everyone else is suppossed to do that for them. They’ve shiny stuff to buy, parties to attend, drugs to do, and entertainment to devour, after all. We’ve arrived at a point where marriage, thus stable homes, has gone from “till death do you part,” to “until you get bored or irritated.” And, even though the status of marriage has already come to mean so little, we still want to dilute it into some equality social club. Libertarianism is fertile ground for the nanny state. Everyone wants to be a libertarian when the party is still jumping. Celebrating their freedoms without care. It’s the next day, realizing there’s consequences for their behavior, that they begin expecting others to help pick up the pieces. [/quote]

The fertile ground for a nanny state, is the state itself.

I said this previously, and I’m not necessarily directing this at you Sloth, but I wish people would read some literature on libertarianism before making these same arguments over and over again.

[/quote]

It doesn’t require reading any literature. I see plainly an ideology that despises the nanny state, yet is embarrased by social/traditional conservatism. If not outright hostile to it. Libertarianism, as I’ve come to see lately, is a thorn in my Conservative side. Before you tear down the nanny state, before you have a populace that will even allow you near it with a pickaxe, you’ll have to win a cultural war first.

You will need a prudent people. A people who raise their own kids in intact homes. Who look after their own parents, in their family home, through their golden years up through their passing. They will have to be a thrifty, but charitable people. They will actually have to know their neighbors. They will put off instant/self gratification for the security of committed arrangements/living. They will rely on private local institutions when they need a helping hand. And, guess what kind of institutions those will most likely be? The same kind that make libertarian eys roll in their heads, as they groan snottily to themselves.

The absence of strong moral traditions and norms begs to be filled with a redistributive central authority. Libertariansim puts the cart before the horse, if it even remembers to bring the horse. You’re not going to get self-governance without prudent, well, self-governance. There’s a cultural war that has to be won first. There’s no getting around it.[/quote]

funny thing is that proudhon “the father of anarchisme” said something similar as you did know sloth. he said that a christian way of life would be beneficial for an anarchist society. for the record I dont agree with proudhon on this matter, like I dont agree with proudhons racist and sexist wiews either.

93

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It doesn’t require reading any literature. I see plainly an ideology that despises the nanny state, yet is embarrased by social/traditional conservatism. If not outright hostile to it. Libertarianism, as I’ve come to see lately, is a thorn in my Conservative side. Before you tear down the nanny state, before you have a populace that will even allow you near it with a pickaxe, you’ll have to win a cultural war first.

You will need a prudent people. A people who raise their own kids in intact homes. Who look after their own parents, in their family home, through their golden years up through their passing. They will have to be a thrifty, but charitable people. They will actually have to know their neighbors. They will put off instant/self gratification for the security of committed arrangements/living. They will rely on private local institutions when they need a helping hand. And, guess what kind of institutions those will most likely be? The same kind that make libertarian eys roll in their heads, as they groan snottily to themselves.

The absence of strong moral traditions and norms begs to be filled with a redistributive central authority. Libertariansim puts the cart before the horse, if it even remembers to bring the horse. You’re not going to get self-governance without prudent, well, self-governance. There’s a cultural war that has to be won first. There’s no getting around it.[/quote]

+1. Libertarians are always arguing on the side of social freedoms, no matter how creepy or bad for society they are. They fail to see they are setting up a society in which the state is necessary because the only people that could survive without a state are the social and fiscal conservatives.

In a socially conservative society you can legalize drugs because few will be drawn in to take them.

In a “progressive” left wing society legalizing drugs simply increases drug addiction and the social acceptance of drugs. And drugged out folk are not going to give a shit about your non-aggression principles.

It is the same for many other services because the very principles of social conservatism are conforming to traditions and morals; this means deviating from those traditions and morals has a serious social consequence.

On the other hand left wing progressives are all about “acceptance” and that any social act should be accepted. So there is no social consequence to deviating. But nobody wants to help out a deviant little weirdo; hence private charities won’t suffice (or will be brainwashing centers).

I know many libertarians have no problem with society going to shit as long as their elite little enclave does well. However, while it disgusts me I find it funny they are promoting actions which will ensure a libertarian society never exists.

94

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It doesn’t require reading any literature.
[/quote]

So you are admitting that you have not read any of the literature, yet are forming an opinion on the subject? How does that work?

Wrong again. Which libertarians are you referring to? You can have your social/traditional conservatism as long as you don’t bother me. Why do you need a coercive state for people to cherish marriage and family?

Why? Does it really matter as long people keep to themselves?

Private institutions, such as the church, should handle charities and take care of people down on their luck. That is how it used to be prior to the emergence of the American nanny state.

If that is the private local institutions you are referring to?

95

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Why do you need a coercive state for people to cherish marriage and family?
[/quote]

You don’t. His point is that only those that cherish marriage, family, and have a strong social and moral structure can flourish without a state.

Oh fuck it. I have read the literature and Sloth really doesn’t need to. It is like saying you haven’t read the Stalinist literature so you can’t pick apart the brain dead commies arguments.

I’m not too bothered because if we do get a libertarian society I am planning on brainwashing, training, and arming all the poor fuckers and using them to create a war mongering state. Then we will see how well my fanatical army does against defense contractors. At the very least it will give defense contractors huge amounts of power which they will undoubtedly use to create their own states.

At best it will make me a powerful dictator.

96

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t disagree with you to an extent, but i’m simply not sure how some aspects of current society is handled in yours. I take it there’ll be an unregulated free-market? How will laws be introduced, enacted and enforced? What’s the courtsystem like? Will there be a police force, and will it be private?

Your new society relies on the maturity and equality of all people, right? I simply don’t have the faith in humanity yet to think we’ll be able to pull that off. Large corporations with limitless funds will be able to control the market, and as they gain power they are going to form a powerbase not unlike a government. Will you be able to prevent that from happening, and how?
[/quote]

Those are problems that will be solved. There are people that have thought about this much more than I so I cannot really give you an answer. I’ve got some ideas but they aren’t really presentable right now. I’m not really sure either how some things are going to be like in a stateless society, but I do know that it is possible.
I am going to state that the lazy mind falls back on the state, just as the mind of the middle-ages fell back on God to explain why they got sick or how the world was created.

Unregulated free market? You mean not under state control.

This video illustrates your concern on mega-monopolies

I’d like to add something for everyone who asks how something would work in a stateless society.
It’s very important that you ask that question but I simply believe that the right solution will emerge in time. IF there is a demand for something, there will be a supply.
There is a pretty good video series about these things.

Currency in a stateless soc.

Police

Courts

Defense

Education

97

This is a very good comicbook on basic economics.
It’s a really fun read!

It might even sort out florelius’ confusion :wink:

98

[quote]Erasmus wrote:
This is a very good comicbook on basic economics.
It’s a really fun read!

It might even sort out florelius’ confusion :wink:

my confusion?

99

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The reason I question right-anarchisme is because capitalisme have not existed in a stateless
enviroment, while the pre-state civilisations where some sort of socialisme.[/quote]

I’m not so sure that the stateless societies were really “socialism”, though may have often been communal.

You’re right, it is impossible to exploit someone without forcing them to work for you. This is why right anarchists want to abolish the state. So it cannot force people to work for others through social welfare schemes. Capitalism is not based on any definitive distribution of property. If a million small businesses can survive, then so be it, but it is generally not in the interest of consumers for this to happen, so it doesn’t. If left anarchism is ruled by a democratic majority, then right anarchism still has rule, but it is in the form of private courts and defense agencies. This means that if the private courts recognize the property rights of the capitalist, then private defense companies will enforce it. The law is a product on the market that people choose to purchase in order to be protected, and they choose the system that they would like best. Right anarchism is based on a voluntary society that exists without coercion. That means that if people want to form their own communes, then that’s fine, but you can’t force me to join as well.

Agreed, and if people want to form communes that is absolutely their right. But they do not have the right to steal capital from others in order to do this. All a capitalist is, is someone who has labored in the past and is now using the capital he labored for to make profit.
[/quote]

privat courts and defence agencies will be a form of state ( a body of violence who force people to obey them ). its sounds really bad, freikorps comes to mind.

exploitation has to sides: tax as you talk about and direct exploitation of labour as socialists talk about ( se wageslavery ). In a anarchist society non exists. people dont exploit eachother they trade, give or loan stuff/capital among eachother.

In a classless society ( this is what anarchy means to me and the original anarchists from the 1800`s ) I am ok with a market economy, but I dont see it as realistic. I do believe that society where the production are organized in communes and workers councils(sovjets) as a more realistic and a more natural way of organizing a anarchy.

But hey I am a marxist and belive that anarchy/communisme cant be reach without an period of socialisme ( a society where the common property of the workers are defended by a state).

If you are interrested in the roots of anarchisme, read “anarchisme” by Guerin. It tells the story of the anarchist movement from Prodhoun, Bakunin, Stirner, Marx, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta to Dany Cohen and the upprising in paris 1968. Guerin called himself a libetarian marxist.

Also read “the communist manifesto” by Marx and Engels. remember they wrote it for a party wich consisted of both statist and anarchist socialists. both group called themself communist back then ( 1848 ). After the first international split, the statist communist started to call themself socialdemocrat. communisme was made a label again when the socialdemocrats split between reformists and revolutionaries after the russian revolution.
[/quote]

The “exploitation of labor” is the conclusion of economic theories that have been debunked centuries ago.

There is no such thing, other than slavery and servitude which both have coercive elements and are not based on mutual consent.

However, it has provided an excellent excuse for socialists for centuries now to be violent themselves, after all they “only defended themselves against the systemic violence of capitalism”.

[/quote]

debunked by whom? do you meen burgeois economists?[/quote]

No, the labor theory of value is self evidently absurd and is held by no serious economist.

Austrian, Keyneasian, Chicago-ites, you name them, they all know it is nonsense.

If you do not believe me, dig a hole and fill it up again and then try to find a buyer. If you do not find a buyer the market has obviously failed because you just know who to work out the “value” of this nonexisting hole, dont you?

And that would be before we went into the absurdities of applying the labor theory of value to
software or drugs which cost very little in labor and quite a lot in R&D.

Or maybe you like Heinleins example better, let us say you and a chef have the same ingredients and bith of you make a pie. Will those pies have the same value? Probably not, his will be worth more AND he will have worked less to achieve that.

This theory is just nonsense and just because you never looked into the subjectivity of value and the marginal revolution in economics makes the labor theory of value no more valid than the theory that the easter bunny wills prices into existence.

The very core of your ideology is flawed and if Marx ahd been worth his salt as an economist he could have known that when he wrote his books.

[/quote]

you dont convince me. keynesian and austrian are both burgeois economic teories, I dont believe in any of them.

without labour any form of society will fail, its the core of production.[/quote]

I do not need to convince you, there are several easily accesible sites that rip the labor theory of value apart.

This is not about ideology, this is as dead as the dodo because it was as one sided as the physiocrates or the bullionists. Because you see, without land or money production is impossible too.

Anyway, there is the flaw in the core of your thinking and when you are ready to look into it you will.

100

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It doesn’t require reading any literature. I see plainly an ideology that despises the nanny state, yet is embarrased by social/traditional conservatism. If not outright hostile to it. Libertarianism, as I’ve come to see lately, is a thorn in my Conservative side. Before you tear down the nanny state, before you have a populace that will even allow you near it with a pickaxe, you’ll have to win a cultural war first.

You will need a prudent people. A people who raise their own kids in intact homes. Who look after their own parents, in their family home, through their golden years up through their passing. They will have to be a thrifty, but charitable people. They will actually have to know their neighbors. They will put off instant/self gratification for the security of committed arrangements/living. They will rely on private local institutions when they need a helping hand. And, guess what kind of institutions those will most likely be? The same kind that make libertarian eys roll in their heads, as they groan snottily to themselves.

The absence of strong moral traditions and norms begs to be filled with a redistributive central authority. Libertariansim puts the cart before the horse, if it even remembers to bring the horse. You’re not going to get self-governance without prudent, well, self-governance. There’s a cultural war that has to be won first. There’s no getting around it.[/quote]

+1. Libertarians are always arguing on the side of social freedoms, no matter how creepy or bad for society they are. They fail to see they are setting up a society in which the state is necessary because the only people that could survive without a state are the social and fiscal conservatives.

In a socially conservative society you can legalize drugs because few will be drawn in to take them.

In a “progressive” left wing society legalizing drugs simply increases drug addiction and the social acceptance of drugs. And drugged out folk are not going to give a shit about your non-aggression principles.

It is the same for many other services because the very principles of social conservatism are conforming to traditions and morals; this means deviating from those traditions and morals has a serious social consequence.

On the other hand left wing progressives are all about “acceptance” and that any social act should be accepted. So there is no social consequence to deviating. But nobody wants to help out a deviant little weirdo; hence private charities won’t suffice (or will be brainwashing centers).

I know many libertarians have no problem with society going to shit as long as their elite little enclave does well. However, while it disgusts me I find it funny they are promoting actions which will ensure a libertarian society never exists.[/quote]

Nonsense, you confuse libertarians and libertines.

You also confuse cause and effect when it comes to the mores of a society and its general shape. Form follows function and if you want a society with strong families and where people take responsibilty for their actions out of necessity you must remove the welfare state.

To first try to promote conservative values so that the welfare state will fall is a lost cause because most people do not adopt certain values because of a deep inner conviction but to adapt to reality.