Well, with all due respect, anarcho-communism is based on anti-authoritarianism and ultimately aims at ending the state. The problem with anarcho-capitalism, like “libertarian communism,” some say, is that the manifestation of such a proposal necessarily contradicts its initial intentions, which are usually pure. It’s not that classical liberals support aggression, per se, as much as they believe that such a system (anarcho-capitalism) must necessarily yield more aggression than the minarchical state. We must differentiate between intentions, on the one hand, and reality on the other.
With all due respect, I wasn’t talking about ancomm.
Besides vigorous handwaving at the subject matter, this sounds like a separate debate. Do you have time to do so? I am game if you are.
No, you’re not, but that’s precisely my point.
Well, my only point was that your response, namely that a chaotic anarchical condition is philosophically incompatible with the NAP, not only fails to answer his question but actually ignores it altogether. A lot of libertarians think that they can somehow dismiss such questions, which are entirely legitimate, simply by pointing to the NAP, the same way that many communists dismiss Leninism and Stalinism because communism is supposed to be a stateless society (though this is debatable).
Once again, just to be clear, his question was:
To our new member, you can make quote indentions by saying [ quote user = “name” ] blablablabla [ /quote ] without the spaces before and after the brackets
I didn’t dismiss his question. Ancap is about the NAP, which creates a voluntary society. Nothing more, nothing less.
Conflating my response with communist justifications for Leninism and Stalinism, quite frankly, is really poor form.
That wasn’t my intention. I was merely saying that this type of argument has a lot of holes in it. I’m not saying that you can’t fill these holes, or that anarcho-capitalism is just as tenable as “libertarian anarchism.” I’m only saying that anarcho-capitalists need to start filling these holes with concrete arguments and empirical support.
Well, they aren’t.
But doesn’t his question already presuppose that they aren’t?
Let me re-state the logic of your response in a different context.
A: “Doesn’t limited government necessarily lead to big government?”
B: “How could limited government and big government be compatible?”
It is clear that limited government isn’t compatible with big government, but that doesn’t make it obviously ridiculous to question whether limited government necessarily leads to big government, or whether we could keep it limited.
Why? Because you said so?
Did I say it was obviously ridiculous?
Well, wasn’t your response supposed to refute his concerns?
Tone “obviously ridiculous” down to whatever you want, as long as it still implies “incorrect”.
Did I say it was?
I don’t want to tone it down. It is irrelevant to me.
Well, I thought that you implied it.
Did I misunderstand where you were coming from?
I believe so. But you’re still on my christmas card list.
Well, then I suggest that you let Esuric know that he also misunderstood you.
But, don’t worry, you don’t have the take that suggestion anymore. I just did it for you.
Whew, I was pretty worried there for a second.
Are you done crapping on this thread now?
Huh?
Problem solved.
Original thread back on topic.
New thread for the pointless and misguided inquisition.
“Anarcho-communists” as far as I know them assign abolishing the state very low priority relative to communist concerns. Take Chomsky for example, who speaks for many. He heartily endorses most South American states. As long as things appear on track in terms of outcome. He didn’t mind the killing in the Spanish civil war. The cause was noble enough. The wackos on the streets of Toronto molotoving everything in sight don’t mind the destruction. The end is important enough.
The problem my two esteemed colleagues have is not with anarchism, but an inability to discern a rhetorical tactic used for a specific purpose. Having to explain it is like having to explain a joke. It is utterly ruined.
We’re all aware of what anarchism is and is not. However, our new member does not. Some people like to spoon feed their knowledge. I’d rather that individual check his own premises by addressing simple definitions. That’s because without an understanding of what ancap is (which he clearly did not have), trying to address outcomes would be nigh impossible.
I’m still amused by Esuric’s claim that I have to substantiate anything, when what I claimed was the definition of anarcho-capitalism as understood by Austro-Libertarians. The truth is, I don’t have to substantiate anything positive or negative about anarcho-capitalism, to Esuric or the other fella or the thread starter. Nor did I intend to. It was a red herring and undermined the discussion with the thread starter.
If one does not prefer anarchism, that is their choice. However my anarchism is without aggression, so if one rejects it, I assume they have a preference for a system with aggression, and good luck finding liberalism or laissez-faire with that.
You do realize that you are just begging the question, right?