Scott, your comparison of BDSM to worshipping the state was really fucking awful. Only the most horribly uninformed leftist would think that BDSM involves actual domination of the type that limits individual growth and self-expression. I’ve talked to people who are into that stuff, it’s not what you think.
So you believe it absolutely essential that all actors receive the exact same compensation. Regardless of their ability, work spent, and competency? You advocate egalitarianism?
What I mean by fallacy is, egalitarianism is an inherent fallacy. Man is not equal, he is born unique. That is a positive, one that makes the world rich, not a negative we should aim to destroy.
No one advocating equality, other than maybe Pol Pot and other such totalitarian commies, wants equality in the sense of sameness. If anyone’s commiting a fallacy, it’s you: conflating any talk of equality with equality of ends and confomity, when Scott defined exactly what he means by “equality” and it’s something different then what you’re saying. Do you think the free market will have generally more equal disparities of wealth? If so, you’re advocating equality.
If that is the case, why the consentration on wealth disparity at all? I am wondering if you missed my point. THe way the startement about equality is presented. The problem is In-equality or wealth disparity, and the solution is the market.
My point is this is a fallacy. There is no problem in wealth disparity. We could never pretend to know how much disparity there should be. Wealth disparity is a symptom of another problem, not a problem itself. When you re-define the problem and terms, people’s anger and resentment gets misplaced.
Point in case, it USED to be that the word “inflation” was defined as a practice of expanding the money supply. Modern times however have redefined the term to mean any general rise in prices of goods and services. This clever trick of re-defining the terms and problems, people become mislead into directing their resentment to a consequence of a greater problem, rather then a problem itself. As a result the Fed has free reign to try and correct the problem of rising prices of goods and services, when in reality it’s not aproblem at all.
Just as wealth disparity is not a problem at all. In both cases the market will moderate the two, but it is dangerously incorrect to pretend that rising prices, and that income in-equality is bad. Perhaps if what you say is true, the manifesto’s section on equality should be re-written to better clarify. And if that is the case, perhaps it could also reconsider all the other syndicalist jargon included in the manifesto and see why it’s inherently flawed.
Income disparity is not a problem, but you are trying to defend it as if it is.
Who cares? Explain to me why wealth disparity is wrong?
If I may be so bold, I’d like to point out what I see as some major semantic disputes between self-styled left-libertarians like Scott F. and non-left-libertarians like Liberty Student. There seem to be certain words which have rather disparate meanings on the part of each “side” in this discussion.
One of the words in dispute is “capitalism”. While non-left-libertarians take this word to be synonymous with “free market”, left-libertarians do not. What the latter call “capitalism” is similar to (if not the same as) what the former call “corporatism”. Either way you cut it, I think both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians alike support complete private ownership of the means of production.
Another word in dispute is “morality”. Non-left-libertarians typically take this to mean something like “a set of precepts that warrant violent retaliation (i.e. coercion) if disobeyed”. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, typically take “morality” to mean something like “a set of precepts that warrant disapproval, protest, and/or disassociation if disobeyed”. It seems clear to me that left-libertarians don’t consider everything they protest or disapprove of to warrant violent retaliation. However, I think they would do well to adopt some term to distinguish what non-left-libertarians call “morality” from what they call “morality”. As an aside, my own usage of “morality” is essentially non-left-libertarian, but I use the term “ethics” to refer to “morality” in the left-libertarian view. I think it can be safely said that both left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle as one of the foremost (if not the foremost) guiding principles.
I see a third dispute which isn’t so much over semantics as it is over something I’ll term “social focus”. By that term, I mean social issues and/or phenomena that a person tends to draw his attention to. Historically, it seems that “left” vs. “right” has involved a distinction of social focus more than anything else. Those termed (and who term themselves) “right” tend to focus on social order and stability. Whether they want to maintain a particular social order is immaterial here. If they don’t, then they typically side with whatever ponderous majority seems to prevent itself.
On the other hand, those termed (and who term themselves) “left” tend to focus on preventing simple disapproval from morphing into violent retaliation. They’ve seen how, throughout history, those who have suffered the most repression have typically been those who were already disapproved of by prevailing majorities. Furthermore, they see how such disapproval was often based on things which the recipients of the disapproval had no control over, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, inherited socioeconomic status, etc. In other words, the “left” considers itself a bulwark against what it sees as moral or legal hypocrisy.
Hopefully the above helps to shed some more light on the “left-libertarian controversy”. I think that open and honest communication (if not debate) requires one to understand where his fellow conversants are coming from. In striving for such an understanding here, it seems to me that the differences between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians are largely cosmetic; otherwise, they concern differences of emphasis.
I’m confused.When did I say this? I’m not against BDSM.
Ok I see what your referring to. This:-
LS:“If I want to be tied up, or have rough sex what business is it of yours?”
Me:The same logic could be applied to “If I want to worship statism, what business is it of yours”.
No I didn’t mean that. To be clear, what I was saying was if your going to argue why should we even care about the morality or immorality of a situation -not specifically BDSM but anything like that taking them as a hypothetical- then it seems you can’t really argue we SHOULD care about statism.I’m saying opposition to being morally critical undercuts anarchism/libertarianism.I was NOT arguing against BDSM.I have no problem with it.It’s not immoral.
To be clear I do not favour the equality you think I do which is absolute conformity:- which is (1) impossible.No one can conform 100% and (2) would be undesirable since I favour inequality and difference when it is not relevant to morality and favour diversity as a cultural value.I think a conformist world would be dull and lifeless without progress or rationality.Essentially it would not remain anarchy for long.
Your manifesto is then misleading, as it leads one to believe that the culprit, or problem of focus is in-equality, and income disparity. Which are not really problems at all.
It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren’t problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn’t mean they aren’t problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people’s actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
As for the typical strawmen about equality, a number of points:
(1) There is controversy over the extent to which various inequalities can be chalked up nature vs. nurture. An egalitarian is (rightly) skeptical of conservative rationalizations for currently existing disparties as if they were “the natural order”, when such a position ignores the myriad of factors irreducible to anything innate. Once again, the egalitarian need not totally deny the existence of natural difference, but they do (rightly) reject rationalizing it all via innatist positions.
(2) One can aknowledge that people are naturally different, and hence unequal, while thinking that such natural inequality does not merit moral distinctions or justify relative positions of authority per se. This is a common part of egalitarianism, and indeed even the most narrow of libertarians (perhaps other than a few odd apples who barely qualify as libertarians anymore) are somewhat egalitarian at this level.
That wouldn’t be correct.I think they- income disparity and inequality correctly explained- are problems but the kind you are claiming I support is neither a position I hold nor a problem.
It seems rather narrow to proclaim that those simply aren’t problems at all. Even if one confines such questions outside the scope of legality, that doesn’t mean they aren’t problems. Do libertarians really want to be in the position of dismissing the existence of any social problem other than physical aggression and the state? If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people’s actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
We can not speak of any theoretical problem by universally catagorizing groups of unique individuals in unique situations in stagnant catagories, any more than we can speak of the injustices Neptune causes Pluto. This is conservativism, this is stagnantion, this is theology, this is apologitics, this is scientism, this is the Protestant tradition.
If so, they will never be able to adequately relate their politics to most people’s actual lives, in which there are tons of problems of this sort.
We can not define or clarify other peoples problems outside of our own power. This is the danger of intellectualism, propaganda and apologies for its pet projects it. What you speak of is propaganda.
There is controversy over the extent to which various inequalities can be chalked up nature vs. nurture. An egalitarian is (rightly) skeptical of conservative rationalizations for currently existing disparties as if they were “the natural order”, when such a position ignores the myriad of factors irreducible to anything innate. Once again, the egalitarian need not totally deny the existence of natural difference, but they do (rightly) reject rationalizing it all via innatist positions
It doesn’t matter; nature v nurture/ tabula rasa doesn’t matter, the “natural order” of things do not matter for us. All that matters is what rules can be spoken of in a universal context; feminism, equality, elites, etc are not in this language unless maybe we speak of history. This is “intellectual central planning” if you wish to concern this in any scientific discussion. Focusing your rage on a libertarians crystal ball will do no good. It is tilting at windmills.
(2) One can aknowledge that people are naturally different, and hence unequal, while thinking that such natural inequality does not merit moral distinctions or justify relative positions of authority per se. This is a common part of egalitarianism, and indeed even the most narrow of libertarians (perhaps other than a few odd apples who barely qualify as libertarians anymore) are somewhat egalitarian at this level.
What? One can do a lot of things in a lot of ways and the price of tea in China, the rising of the tide, and the aesthetics of people who I don’t even know exist are beyond any use to meditate over. Show someone the consequences of actions if you can; shilling for a Jinn in a bottle is actually letting loose Pandora’s box.
Why are they problems.
CORRECTION: What I am claiming you support is this.
Why is it a problem. What is inherently wrong about it. Why should it be the center piece of a bulliton point, so that the economy must revolve around this point of concern?
Did you read my post about the dangers of mis-placed concerns? And how thats a recipe for disaster? It may be that your solution to income disparity is the market, and indeed, the market would be the best solution if that were a problem to begin with.
However in your efforts and teachings, someone else will take part of what you said, and leave the rest. They may agree with you strongly that income disparity is a problem, but reject the solution of a market. As a result your just bolstering a socialist platform. All the while never explaining why income disparity is a problem to begin with. You just assume it is, without ever explaining why.
This is how socialist platforms begin., The market will never rid of income disparity in it’s entirity. And if income equality is a key point, people will focus on why we are failing to obtain it, and then move away from markets to find a more forceful method to reach that goal.
So explain to me, and us, what exactly is wrong with income disparity. Why should we strive above all else to obtain income equality?
It is the material source of all coercive power? It is in itself a barrier to entry? It creates a war of the haves v have nots that has yet to not lead to intervention in the market? If the system doesn’t equalize incomes, than what’s the point?
Here’s the point many are missing, equality in a political sense, is a process. It’s not a destination.
One should promote equalization, and therefore prosperity, not necessarily equality… after all, we could all be equally poor.
It is the material source of all coercive power? It is in itself a barrier to entry? It creates a war of the haves v have nots that has yet to not lead to intervention in the market? If the system doesn’t equalize incomes, than what’s the point?
Increased material well-being.
Are you responding to me?
Your saying that income disparity is:
So if this is the culprit why not abolish income disparity? You think income equality would not be a material source for coercive power?
Seems like both you and SCottF have fallen for a Strawman.
Let me get this straight. IS this what you really intended to say?
Notice I said exactly. Requesting for a detailed explanation. Here is your non-sequitur.
Explain how one follows from the other, without having to amend your whole position.
Look you both can back out of this now and just realize your chasing a boogyman, it wouldn’t be hard to simply re-word that bulletin item.
Increased material well-being.
That’s a seperate debate on whether equality is or isn’t conducive to increased material well-being. I of course think it is, and I think history verifies that.
You need to be clear. What do you mean by “equal”. Do you mean income equality? And what manner of empiricism are you employing to come to this conclusion historically.