You’re right in that it makes no sense to become an ally with people that are anti-private property. It makes, as you say, more sense to try to convert minarchists, who over-all, share our views on property, but hasn’t reached the correct conclusion yet.
Several minarchists I know are tempted by anarcho-capitalist ideas, and would support it if they were shown that it could work. I think that’s a great place to start.
Yes, private property is by its very nature unegalitarian. Egalitarianism is a fundamental idea behind the redistributionist welfare states, which tries to abolish the differences between productive and unproductive etc. In essence it is a philosophical idea that stands for human sacrifice. Or as Sumner said in “What the Social Classes Owe Each Other:
“… All the schemes for producing equality… produce a new differentiation based on the worst possible distinction — the right to claim and the duty to give one man’s effort for another man’s satisfaction. We shall find that every effort to realize equality necessitates a sacrifice of liberty.”
Okay, so I guess I was just using market-anarchism where you use anarcho-capitalism, then. I do believe in private property, & consider myself a market-anarchist, so I was a bit confused there.
I agree with converting regarding minarchists & paleo-cons, instead of alliances.
As for forming alliances with those that do not accept private property, I think it’s fundamentally important that communicative alliances should be formed, as I cannot see people who disagree with private property being forced into accepting at all without some sort of social or even physical confrontation.
A Statless Society is achieved, then what? Not everyone will agree to a certain arrangement, I think it would be fundamentally hypocritical if ever were libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/market-anarchists to violate non-agression, non-coercion, & voluntaryism against those that disagree with them.
It would seem like a double-standard, which is why though may not agree with an anarcho-communist, mutualist, etc. etc., I could not bring myself giving them an ultimatum that may reside on majority or even, possible, an almost territorial monopoly, in a Stateless Society.
I could’ve worded that better, but do you understand what I’m saying regarding the conflict I see?
Libertarianism won’t come about all over the world at the same time. It’ll start with smaller towns and regions acheiving freedom through a process of secession. It’ll proceed from there. even if not always in the form of anarcho capitalism regions will declare independance and as a result of being smaller it will be of necessity that they’re more free market orientated. The secession may not even be aimed at any ideals of capitalism, but nonetheless the more states there are the more competition there is between states, the more free market they will need to be. Just like Europe a few hundred years ago.
From here it is essential that libertarians focus on key areas and abolish the state in these. At first being somewhat comprimising and allowing the state to retain “its” property, and growing more and more ambitious as the movement develops. As time goes by it will be up to those to dull to think for themself to compare the prosperity of the anarcho capitalist regions with those of the more statist and decide what they want. If they oppose private property then so be it. They’ll pay the price for it.
When leviathan eventually crumbles under its own weight those left that supported the state can do as they please, as long as it isn’t coercing the individuals that choose to live their lives free of the state.
That’s not an arguement, it’s an ad hoc assertion. May as well give that answer to “why do you reject anarchism”, since there is no difference in fact between anarchism as such and anarchism without adjectives.
On an interesting side-note, this was one of the first protests where a Market Anarchist flag was seen flying, as well as Market Anarchist’s first (or one of) appearance offline. William Gillis (human iterations blog) was also involved as well, I think.
Strange, I’ve actually had more luck bringing socialists to market anarchism than minarchists. Most of the minarchists I’ve met are wishy washy conservatives who hate the radical wing of the libertarian movement, viewing us as ideological “purists”.
Then you’ve just essentially rejected the anarchist movement as a whole, including the individualist anarchists (and a note: half the people you think are cultural marxists aren’t, you just use it as a label to slap on non-conservatives).
Your personal preferance for how to use private property is not what defines libertarianism or anarchism.
It’s sad that you’re still caught up in the semantics over property and questions of personal preferance. The point isn’t “anarchism without private property”, the point is that “private property” can have many manifestations and people can have a wide array of personal preferances for how to organize “privately”. Your preferance for how to use “private property” has nothing to do with anarchism in any direct sense, and you need to stop treating it that way.
Anarchism without adjectives merely recognizes voluntary pluralism, that people have different preferences WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF VOLUNTARY INTERACTION. There is NOTHING TO FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSE outside of the context of PERSONAL PREFERANCE. What’s not to understand about this? Anarchism without adjectives is just the defacto result of being consistant to voluntaryism.
In Sweden we don’t have many “wishy washy conservatives”, but rather a larger group of classical liberals/neoliberals, who in no way can be classified as conservatives, but I’ve in no way gotten the impression that most minarchists in the U.S. are “conservatives”.
In my experience, most minarchists in the U.S. are (1) former Republicans who have fled the party in opposition to the neocons, I.E. paleocons in essence (2) moderates who got sucked in to the LP by the notion of “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” (3) people who want to break the two-party stranglehold on politics and (4) former left-of-center liberals who got sucked in by Ron Paul and (5) young kids who are looking for something different.
Many of them aren’t even aware that anarchism is a segment of the libertarian movement, and see Libertarianism as a party rather then a philosophy. Ive found most of my interactions with them to be endlessly frustrating, as the Libertarian Party is a wasteland at this point.
Anarcho-capitalism is a personal preferance or flavoring, it only represents how you personally would like to voluntary organize and how you personally define things, while anarchism is a broad paradigm including anything that is voluntary. Anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept and label, and only represents one segment of anarchism. Anarchism is a general political tenet going back a few centuries before Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism. If you wish to write off the entirety of the anarchist movement and anarchistic philosophy prior to Rothbard, or if you wish to act as if anarcho-capitalism subsumes the whole of anarchism, then frankly you are being a bigoted partisan.
Anarchism itself is not a political or economic system, it’s whatever you attach to the term anarcho that is a political or economic system. Anarchism is merely the voluntary context in which people can choose to associate or not associate with political or economic systems. In the context of anarchism, one can only advocate such political or economic systems as a your personal preferance, not as an imperative for everyone. There is no anarchistic imperative for one to choose wage labor or vertically integrated firms as an economic system. If there is any anarchistic imperative, it’s voluntaryism, but voluntaryism does not inherently translate to (insert your personal preferance for how to voluntarily organize here).
It by no means follows that because one favors a voluntary society, one inherently must favor “capitalism” (or to be more specific with examples, the use of money, standard wage labor, for-profit organization, rent, stock markets, etc.).
How amusing, you claim that I’m caught up in semantics and yet you dismiss the idea that anarchism can be subsumed under anarchocapitalism because ancap is a new term.
Indeed, anarchist thought has existed for many centuries prior to Rothbard and the current anarchocapitalist movement, you’re correct in this much. But how you manage to jump from this to the conclusion that these other strands of anarchism are viable and/ or coherent is beyond me. Of course, by saying this I am just being a bigoted partisan, how silly of me.
I’ve never said, as you imply, that anarchocapitalists can’t borrow ideas from other ideologies. It is perfectly reasonably that we draw on thinkers from other ideologies. I merely think that there’s no much to be learned from any leftists.
The point is, as much as you can try and post red herrings and obfuscate the truth much in your usual fashion. Anarchism without property rights is nonsensical.
Stop blurring the truth and trying to avoid the point. There is one definition of property and that is exclusive control over a good. Other “ideologies” that claim to be anarchist don’t recognise this. Stop trying to claim the high ground of voluntaryism. I’m all in favour of the outcome of voluntary contracts, but a voluntary contract exchanging a square circle for a unicorn doesn’t make sense. Same applies for you absurd notions of anarcho capitalism (correctly, pro private property) and anarcho communism (anti private property) existing side by side.
As much as you hate to admit it, the abolition of the state will yield certain outcomes, inconsistant with those you claim to fit inside the paradigm of “anarchism”.
Wonderful, truly. Freedom will indeed happen as a result of its proponents not being able to define what they defend. How convenient for somebody who is clearly anti private property (I can do ad homs too).
It is unthinkable that anybody should wish to exclude blacks or Mexicans. On the other hand, should one wish to exclude theists? That’s perfectly ok. Voluntaryism is great, but only if the voluntary arrangements are to your liking. For you anarchism means “anything goes” perhaps you need to get off Youtube and meet reality.
That wasn’t my arguement. My arguement is that anarchism as a whole cannot be subsumed under “anarcho-capitalism” because in actual fact “anarcho-anything” is subsummed under anarchism by the very nature of it. “Capitalism” is just a reflection of one’s flavor WITHIN the context of anarchism. This is quite simple, and there are no reasons to oppose this other than partisan attachments to the word “capitalism” and a personal preferance for the things associated with “capitalism” (such as money, wage labor, for-profit organization, etc.).
Well, for one thing, anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t exist without the tradition of individualist anarchism, which wouldn’t exist without mutualism, which (here comes the sound of nails on the chalkboard) wouldn’t exist without socialism. Any form of anarchism is viable as anarchism if it truly is anarchism. All that is required is respect for vountaryism for something to qualify as an anarchistic philosophy. That’s it. Anything else beyond this reduces to personal preferances and semantic ambiguities, and differences in predictions on the likely outcome of a voluntary society.
I’m not defending anarchism without property rights, I’m defending anarchism period. You’re clinging in a partisan way to a particular manifestation of anarchism. And just because people don’t prefer the same methods of organization as you do does not mean that they are necessarily defying property rights. You’re conflating your personal preferances with anarchism as such.
Of course, I’m quite sure you approach them free from bias and try your very to tolerate their cultural consertarvism.
I don’t see how you can say that minarchists (those who believe in socialism of defence on the grounds of praticality) will be more tolerant towards anarchism than those socialists who wish to have socialism over most, if not all, aspects of life. Their justification? The evils of private property and its corollary: inequality.
Furthermore, one must question the sincerity of these socialists you “convert” given the incoherence of your own “anarchism”.
And anarcho socialistrs and LL are teenage boys who feel the need to rebel against authority and anything “Bourgeoisie**”**. Most of whom fail to come to terms with the nature of things. Moreover none of these children have any notion of the world outside of their own computer room.
One does not need to personally prefer exclusive control over a good to recognize the principle of voluntaryism.
In actual fact, no school of anarchism entirely rejects exclusive control over goods.
The degree to which one wants to be exclusive with a good, in the context of voluntary interaction, is entirely a matter of personal preferance. You cannot reasonably argue that your personal preferance for how exclusive to be is a requirement for anarchism.
Anarchism is not defined by exclusive control over goods, it’s defined by voluntary interaction. You put the cart before the horse.
It’s not an absurd notion that a commune can peacefully coexist next to an individualist market, or that a commune can exist within an individualist market. All that’s required is a general live and let live attitude - which is much more fundamentally what anarchism is about than any of your personal preferances for things being “private”. Ironically, you aren’t taking a live and let live attitude!
And you’re merely proving my point that a lot of this reduces to differences in one’s personal predictions on the outcome of a stateless society and one’s personal preferances for how to voluntarily organize minus a state, and the conflict is thus irrelevant and silly.