My perspective is far from incoherant. Unfortunately, you simply don’t understand it, which is quite sad, since my viewpoint is rather benign.
Please present intellectual argumentation, you are getting sad.
What the world would be, if we took the advice that we are so quick to offer others…
No, I’m saying anarchism without property rights is incoherent. You’re not really refuting that you’re just playing your usual games of writing a lot of nonsense and obfuscating the truth, needless to say it’s most boring.
This has nothing to do with organisation. It has to do with accepting private property, something your comrades don’t do. Hence, it only follows that their “anarchism” is incoherent.
You miss the point. Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.
Or, because capitalism means private property, funnily enough like anarchism.In any case read a free society would be a capitalist one, with privately owned means of production and wage labour.
Nonsense, that’s just how things have gone historically.
I hear anarcho communists are very fond of private property?
Yes one does. Since the whole notion of public goods is very confused in any case and can only be acheived through the state.
Which excludes all other forms of arrangements other than anarcho capitalism (living in a commune by choose is capitalist, by the way).
That’s because a live and let live attitude is silly and is nowhere implied by private property.
And yes a commune can coexist next to an individualist market (it wouldn’t, because it would be outcompeted) but that’s capitalism.
Now now, don’t be so intolerant.
Again, you’re blinded by personal preferances and semantics.
All of the people I consider “comrades” accept private property. They just don’t necessarily agree with YOUR preferance for what to do with it.
You are speaking from ignorance.
Sorry, that is partisan nonsense. Anarcho-capitalism is not the whole of genuine anarchism. Anarchism, as a philosophy consistantly favoring voluntary interaction, was not invented by Murray Rothbard. Anarcho-capitalism is not the only manifestation of a consistant application of voluntary interaction, it represents one interpretation and one preferance. There is no moral imperative to be a “capitalist”, the only moral imperative is voluntary interaction, and “capitalism” is not the only possible method of voluntarily interacting. The truth is that anything that can not be subsumed under anarchism as such is internally inconsistant. Again, you’re approaching this from a partisan perspective, not a broad anarchistic perspective.
Incorrect. Privately owned means of production and wage labor is only a personal preferance that can exist in anarchism, it does not define anarchism in any sense. It is not a moral imperative or a uniform model for a free society. There are no uniform models for a free society. It does not follow from the fact that a society is free that wage labor and private ownership of the means of production will be uniformly pursued as a norm. A free society entails no single system, it entails competition between systems. Anarchism is not a system and you need to stop treating it as such.
It’s a clear philosophical developement, no nonsense about it. You wouldn’t debating with me right now about this if it wasn’t for people like Benjamin Tucker.
Gustave de Molinari, Jakob Mauvillon, Julius Faucher were all Classical Liberals, which today, more or less, would have been considered to be anarcho-capitalists, but they were not from an anarchist tradition, but rather dwelled within the liberal movement. Anarcho-capitalism is just consistent liberalism, and the above mentioned were radical liberals. There is no reason to believe that anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t have developed without the above mentioned process that you described, since people obviously reached anarcho-capitalist conclusions without it.
But many anarchists don’t view private property as legitimate at all, but rather see it as a crime. They would also favor the seizing of private property, by the collective, and from that perspective they are hardly voluntaryists, but rather criminals themselves, which must be opposed. In order to be voluntaryists on must accept the legitimacy of private property. In voluntaryism everyone would be acting within the framework of private property, and contract.
I get it, I’m a partisan bigot. Perhaps you should be more tolerant to partisan bigots now, otherwise you’re inconsistant.
In any case, you’re just using “private property” in an Orwellian sense. It means one thing when applied to those you like, another to those who you don’t like. Stop the nonsense, it has a clear meaning no matter how much you like to ignore that fact. A meaning not consistant with the types of anarchism you propose.
You’re being rhetorical and evading the point.
No, one does not need to personally prefer exclusivity to favor the idea that interaction between humans should be voluntary. I’m not talking about state ownership vs. non-state ownership. I’m talking about exclusivity vs. inclusivity in general, and it is absurd to proclaim that voluntary interaction = exclusivity. I can voluntarily interact in an inclusive way. Nothing about recognizing voluntary interaction as a norm requires that I favor exclusion or exclusion to the degree that you apparently do. I can voluntarily make my goods more inclusive, and I can voluntarily form commons, and there’s nothing about it that would be inconsistant with voluntaryism. You need to stop conflating your personal preferences with voluntaryism as such.
No, voluntary interaction does not inherently equal your prefered method of voluntarily organizing/interacting. Your prefered method of voluntarily organizing/interacting is not the entirety of voluntary interaction.
Choosing to live in a commune is not “capitalist”. You twist the word “Capitalist” to mean “Voluntary” as such. It’s beyond silly.
A live and let live attitude is not silly, it’s necessary for the functioning a free society with people in it who vary! The opposite of a live and let live attitude would be the perpetuation of violent and institutional conflict. There is nothing “silly” about trying to peacefully co-exist with people who have different preferances than you. That’s kind of half the point!
Also, you seem to treat private property as a first principle when it isn’t. Individual sovereignty is a much more fundamental principle that precedes property rights. Property rights are not axoimatic. BTW, this viewpoint is consistant with none other then Rand. Life and liberty come first. Property rights don’t trump life or liberty.
eyeroll
Obviously you insist on blowing up the concept of “capitalism” to the point where it subsumes everything and is synanimous with all that is good, but it really is quite silly.
Exactly, BP tries to ignores this and post countless red herrings. The fact remains, there would have to be a clear meaning of private property rights and anybody who doesn’t respect these would be removed from society.
BP tries to claim the high ground of voluntaryism, as if a voluntary contract exchanging my square circle for your unicorn is meaningful.
Strange how you referance non-anarchists as a pretext to anarchism as if they trump the actual anarchist movement existing at the time, when none of them came to reject the state in principle.
But no, anarcho-capitalism would not have developed without the actual pre-existing anarchist movement, particularly the tradition of American individualist anarchism. You can choose to be ignorant of the influence of this tradition at your own risk.
Rand actually thought that the “right to property” was an aspect of the “right to life”.
Again, you’re caught up in semantics and refuse to recognize the genuine anarchists who don’t advocate any initiation of force.
In order to be a voluntaryist, one doesn’t have to accept the legitimacy of private property. All one has to do is advocate non-initiation of force as a norm. One can advocate non-initiation of force as a norm and not accept the legitimacy of private property at the same time. You may think that makes no sense, but it’s true. Someone can ideologically reject the legitimacy of private property and act as a total pacifist. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that one ideologically rejects private property that one must advocate or participate in violence.
Wait, what does “removed from society” mean, and how do intend on doing this without violating people’s individual sovereignty (and there own prvate property rights to boot!)? Are you going to forcibly kick them off of their own land or remove them from their own homes? I smell a case of closet authoritarianism when you take it to this level. And on what pretext will they have to be removed from society - for not IDEOLOGICALLY agreeing with you? Are you advocating that people be removed from society if they don’t pass an ideological test?
This has nothing to do with squares circles and everything to do with your lack of understanding of anarchism as a broad paradigm.
Well, since they don’t recognize private property as legitimate their views on not initiating force becomes different from mine. If property rights are illegitimate, then violations of other peoples property becomes fully acceptable. An anti-property pacifist would be OK. with using my property, since it to him wouldn’t be aggression in any way.
She thought it follows from it. Not that it trumps it or is a first principle. It isn’t a first principle.
I think you have it a little confused: An anti-propertarian pacifist wouldn’t attempt to seize anything of yours to begin with.
A pacifist is against using force, but if he doesn’t regognize private property rights he would have no problem with violating my rights, since he doesn’t see property rights as a right at all.
I don’t think that’s true. If anything socialism is an outgrowth of classical liberalism, not the other way around.