Toward making this discussion productive, how about you avoid guessing what I may be implying and just answer the simple questions (here they are again):
What would be exchanged (presumably freely and without coercion) in this market of yours if not property (goods, capital, etc.) and services (labor, advice, etc.)? Also, which parties would be exchanging them if not their respective owners?
Z.
So you demonstrate that there was no strawman. thanks.
Do you think I, an Anarcho-Capitalist’s, a plumb-line libertarian who rejects the state and does not abhor sweatshops favour the status quo?
And perhaps I should ask, isn’t it silly to say that radicals are left and conservatives on the right, when it is enough to use the words, radical or conservative, to describe those ideas.
why are sweatshops only possible because of states? and is foreign investment evil?
Your response to my pointing out you utilize historical materialism in your OP is to call me a monkey and troll? Seems to me your casually tossing around insults is not going to help your lack of an argument. Even while you break the rules, I’ve got thick skin for your petty insults. You will continue to be asked to substantiate your position in debate.
If you’re not a Marxist or a Hegelian, why are you using their methodology?
Asking a question about your position is not a strawman. Please try to understand logic.
I can’t speak for BP, but he holds similar positions to your OP, and they are untenable. I too would get sick of holding and defending an untenable position.
You haven’t defined morality. You continue to avoid the fact that voluntary relations are moral in themselves, regardless of the specific voluntary activity.
I don’t talk about legal issues. I am talking only about moral issues. What is morality Scott?
Who decides this?
Again, it doesn’t matter if you know the person or not, if we find the person or not. You’re avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices.
So what you’re saying, is that part of being human, and being libertarian, is judging other people. Is that correct? That you can claim I am engaging in immoral activity simply because you don’t like it, and your humanity makes this righteous.
If that is true, then aren’t people who hate homosexual relations or mixed race relationships basically able to use the same arbitrary method you claim is legitimate? If not, why? What makes your opinion about my life superior to theirs? Or to my own choices?
Isn’t you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?
Why do you keep bringing up legality? I am only speaking about morality. It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral? What moral crime can I commit against myself?
What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?
To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It’s knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I’m not a marxist nor hegelian.
" I don’t like being conflated as Marxist or Hegelian hence I conflate you as right-wing or reactionary." Makes sense.
Property and services would be exchanged and owners(individual or collective) would be exchanging them.
Half a step forward, three steps back.
You defended prejudice per se without nuance and did not retract your statement or clarify thus you are a reactionary.
Define what makes a person a left winged and a person right winged.
why are sweatshops only possible because of states?
not only possible but certainly hugely more likely.Due to the reasons in the manifesto.
sweatshops are possible in stateless societies.hate to break it to you.
Well An-caps tend to lean towards the status quo
This is cognitive dissonance of the highest order. Rejecting the state is now not radical but status quo…
"Your response to my pointing out you utilize historical materialism in your OP is to call me a monkey and troll? Seems to me your casually tossing around insults is not going to help your lack of an argument. "
True yet your irritating.You’ve not proven I’m a kind of marxist yet…
“If you’re not a Marxist or a Hegelian, why are you using their methodology?”
I’m not.Show how this is marxist or hegelian methodology. This is another absurd conflation.In your mind certain rhetoric= marxist= kind of marxist/hegel methodology.Non sequitur.
" You continue to avoid the fact that voluntary relations are moral in themselves,"
I don’t disagree so what are you talking about. They are moral only inso far as they are voluntary- only in that respect- but CAN be immoral in other respects.
To not understand this is to treat it simplistically and it leads to all sorts of absurdity.
“If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?”
" I am talking only about moral issues. What is morality Scott?"
Well I don’t have a quick definition to hand as of now. I guess I’d say it concerns the proper relations between humans (and to some extent non humans)
"I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? "
“Depends what their doing.There’s plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren’t NAP violations.”
“Who decides this?”
human beings who think.who reason.Who care about morality. What the hell are you on about? are you not a human being?
I think you’ll struggle to find people who WANTs emotional abuse.
“I’d like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit.”
" You’re avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices."
I haven’t.I’ve said it depends on the case and is complex.What we seem to be talking about though is treating people as less than human i.e. dehumanization of which aggression is a subset.
“Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people’s relationships.”
“That’s part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that’s what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc.”
"So what you’re saying, is that part of being human, and being libertarian, is judging other people. Is that correct? "
Correct.I’d like you to show otherwise.
“That you can claim I am engaging in immoral activity simply because you don’t like it, and your humanity makes this righteous.”
Strawman.
“If that is true, then aren’t people who hate homosexual relations or mixed race relationships basically able to use the same arbitrary method you claim is legitimate? If not, why?”
because their reasoning is flawed so premises and then conclusions flawed.This is basis philosophy 101.I’m not going to carry on with you being so daft.
“Isn’t you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?”
I’m not controlling you to make you do what I want.I’m just having a belief and expressing it.Nothing authoritarian about it.
Legally? yes.Morally? I’d say not.
“but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited.”
morally,yes.Legally,depends.
"Why do you keep bringing up legality? I am only speaking about morality. "
As a thick libertarian I consider both.Furthermore it helps clarify.
“It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral?”
Well then your on to arguing about ethics in general.
" What moral crime can I commit against myself?"
Plenty.
“What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?”
a complex related mix of Natural law, virtue ethics,consequentialism,enlightened self interest , the golden rule and Eudaimoniaism…
You defended prejudice per se without nuance and did not retract your statement or clarify thus you are a reactionary.
Been addressed Scott, feel free to reply (middle of page 3)
That really just sounds like a blanket statement, not a fitting analysis at all. However, even if true, its still not applicable. I’ve defended prejudice and stereotypes due to surrounding circumstances and environment, not per se.
That is capitalism.
-
What else than voluntary exchange of property (goods and services) between respective owners of such do you advocate?
-
How do you intend to impose your subjective (aesthetic) preferences about the universe (no wage labor, no bad bosses, no stinky diapers, etc.) without destroying the very voluntary and free markets that you purport to advocate?
Can’t you see the contradiction staring at you?
Z.
Only by shifting to an ideal definition that is historically inaccurate. “Capitalism” has always entailed specific economic organizational structures in the context of an industrial society and a legal system enforcing very particular property norms and titles. The voluntary exchange of resources has taken place in various forms and ways throughout human history, without “capitalism” entering into the picture. Various agrarian and tribal societies had markets in some form or to some degree, but to call the simple barter processes involved in such societies “capitalist” is an ideological coloration.
“Capitalism” can’t reasonably claim the status of something universal in history. The baggage of the usage of the term points us to the 19th and 20th centuries, in the context of the industrial and liberal revolutions, their philosophical roots and the issues of contention that they have raised. The question of “capitalism” and its very concept comes from classical liberalism and 19th century political economy, and it involves the issue of the shift from agrarian and feudal societies to industrial liberal democracies that rely on a large and perpetually productive population of wage workers.
Z, three problems there.
-
Capitalism. Capital-ism. Capital as ideology, system or dogma. Authority held by capitalists-a hierarchial system based on wage labor.
-
Left-libs aren’t against voluntary exchange. He just said he was for voluntary exchange, in the simplest possible terms, and you said he was against it. The fuck?
-
“Imposing” implies the use of force. Left-libs don’t support that as a way of achieving political ends.