It’s quite simple: the bulk of us are part of the producing/ruled class to one degree or another, and it is absolutely counterproductive for us to be fighting amongst eachother over personal preferances when we could be uniting against the ruling class. The degree to which we do waste time pitting the subjects against eachother over cultural and preferential concerns is the degree to which we allow divide and conquer to occur and perpetuate the system. The system is reliant on such conflict among the populace.
It is sad when fellow members of the ruled class are regaurded with more opposition than the actual ruling class, when anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists are more concerned with opposing other anarchists than opposing statism. If you think your goals of a free society will be achieved without solidarity among the ruled class, and if you think a free society can be sustained as a free society without some reasonable degree of tolerance for different preferances, then you’re a fool and your goals will never be achieved.
If you refuse to find common ground with other anarchists, if you refuse to approach anarchism as a broad paradigm in which there are a multiplicity of personal preferances for people to pursue, then you are in fact acting in a way that is detrimental to your own alleged cause and you are apparently far more concerned with your personal preferances than with the fundamental and thick goal of a voluntary society (which, despite protests to the contrary, will not uniformly reflect your personal preferances).
Why shouln’t I respect people who came to virtually anarcho-capitalist conclusions more than the social anarchists at the time?
If people came to anarcho-capitalist/libertarian conclusions without being a part of the anarchist movement at the time isn’t that evidence that the anarchist movement WASN’T required in order to reach such conclusions?
Again, you seem confused. A pacifist has no means to violate your rights. They’re a pacifist! If they tried to seize your property, then they aren’t pacifists! It’s quite simple.
I never implied that classical liberalism came from socialism. My point was that anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t exist without individualist anarchism, which in fact wouldn’t exist without socialism, given that all of the individualist anarchists were considered part of the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement.
Because it simply isn’t true. The social anarchists actually rejected the state. The conclusions of people like Benjamin Tucker were far more radical then any of the classical liberals who fell short of anarchism you can point me to. It makes no sense to me to view classical liberals as somehow favorable to those who actually embraced anarchism. Limited government proponents are preferable to anarchists because the anarchists have a “socialistic” stigma attached to them that you don’t like?
The people in question by and large didn’t in fact reach anarchistic conclusions. Outside of some economic misunderstandings, the anarchists existing at the time were by far superior.
Minarchism entails a nightwatchman state. Anyone not wholly committed to that ideal, is not a minarchist. It’s as simple as that. I’ve managed to convert outright fascists over to market anarchism. That does not mean minarchists are not the easiest group to convert.
My personal preferences are not what you imagine them to be. Id have no tolerance towards anyone that would want to break up my family or nation with the use of force ("culture war" through private resources is fair game though), I just dont see why in capitalism anyone would want to. I have no desire to forcefuly break up anyones commune or workers collective (a commune is just a phony version of extended family, and a worker`s collective is just a very primitive instance of a buisiness corporation) precisely because I like capitalism and capitalism prescribes we take part in free exchange with the communes, it does not prescribe we go smash them.
I am much less certain however communists would be as tolerant of my preferences. Communism does mandate violence against capitalism. It is interesting even you say that Anarcho-Communists do not really oppose property. So basicaly you yourself recognise the fact they can only become true Anarchists if they let go off a part of their doctrine.
Infact I would go so far as to say an independent voluntary commune can only exist in capitalism and commundard enthusiasts should want for the outside society to recognise property and free exchange or they can not be safe from outside depradations.
The term anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer and Rothbard should have never coined it. Noone, outside of Rothbard and a small click of people who cling to his terminology, actually think that “capitalism” refers to a stateless society. If we do take such a definition at face value, then the term anarcho-capitalism is a redundancy and hence makes no sense even by its own terms. Or, if we recognize capitalism as an economic system that has always involved a state, we can recognize the term as a rank contradiction. If you wish to make enemies out of those who believe more or less the same thing as you but don’t share your devotion to a word (“capitalism”), then you’re functioning as an impediment to progress.
If I owned some land, on which a grew corn the pacifist wouldn’t view that as property at all (if they were anti-property rights), so it wouldn’t be against their view of non-aggression to take some of my corn, without me knowing about it.
You said yourself that: “One can advocate non-initiation of force as a norm and not accept the legitimacy of private property at the same time.”
Here we have a person who advocate non-initiation of force (against person), and aggresses against property, i.e. initiates force.
So they are against force against people, but not property, which in their opinion is not a right at all.
And without the conceptual tools of anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism, the other “anarchists” have no leg to stand on. Unless they acknowledge property rights, their movement is a sham. To the extent that they acknowledge them alongside the right to life and liberty (which amount to self-ownership), they can validly form their own societies. It does not mean their forms of anarchism can be subsumed under anarcho-capitalism, of course, as their mode of organization differs. But unless and until they accept the concept of rights undergirding our form of anarchism (or at least something analogous to it, such as a form of contractarianism), they’re simply statists in disguise.
I think Rothbard liked the in-your-face vibe such a name gives out. I think it was a good strategy. It ensures the ideology stays radical and does not get watered down, which is what in his opinion killed off Classical Liberalism.
Molinari then proceeded to backpeddle and he consistantly refused to embrace anarchism. Molinari’s contribution was only in demonstrating the possibility of private production of defense in economic terms; he had nothing to say about voluntaryism as a norm and it is unclear as to what his concept of justice was.
This is a strawman. For the love of pete, could you avoid posting stuff like this? It stifles genuine conversation when you repeatedly mis-characterize the people in the debate and their positions.
No one is talking about preferences. We’re talking about fact. What is logical and rational about property. Not what A, B and C all differently think, and how all 3 views are valid. They are valid in the sense that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
That’s the problem with muddying the waters. It only serves to obfuscate the truth, which is what our (my) greatest weapon is based upon. Truth telling.
Sure it takes some people longer to come around to the truth, and some refuse to acknowledge facts which don’t fit their perception of reality, but the truth is bleach. It wipes away obfuscation and leaves only facts.
So please don’t make this about “personal preferences”, because it isn’t. It is about facts. And our (my) set of facts, don’t match up with syndicalists, mutualists, socialists or communists. Probably more groups, but those are the relevant ones in this discussion right now. Now either I am wrong (which I admit could be possible) or I am not. But I don’t believe we can all be right at the same time and not have conflicts and violence arise with no clear resolution process, because the facts are held differently by all parties.
Let’s figure out the truth, and then let’s make our case based on that.
I think you’re going in intellectual circles to prove an untenable point. A genuine pacifist wouldn’t consistantly be acting as a pacifist if they stole from people. Pacifists aren’t generally a bunch of theives.
Yes, they can reject capitalism in their internal dealings (just like a husband and wife can), but they must embrace capitalism in their dealings with the outside.
I didn’t say that. What I did say was that anti-private property right pacifists (or lets take any other anti-private property person) would not see it as stealing at all, and hence not an initiation of the use of force.
My problem with this is that such conceptual tools are not exclusive to anarcho-capitalism, such conceptual tools have been accepted and used by people long before there was such thing as anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard didn’t invent this stuff, he just helped to refine and modernize it.
From the Proudhonian tradition onwards, they have aknowledged property rights.
I say anyone can validly form their own societies regaurdless, there is no ideological test one must pass to form a society.
You understand this part, unlike some others.
We very well both know which ones are statists in disguise and which ones are not. The likes of mr1001nights are clearly statists in disguise. I would not, however, put the bulk of them in the same category as him. I would also assert that some anarcho-capitalists are statists in disguise. This problem transcends the sides.