You jumped the gun. If the OP is the same now as when you saw it, then I’m struggling to see the assumption of wrongness he (allegedly) made.
That’s why we also call outselves anarchists. Libertarians because we see liberty as a central value, and anarchists because we see hierarchy as opposite to liberty.
You don’t promote liberty, you promote consent. You see nothing wrong with people not being free if they consent to it (and economic circumstances don’t count as coercion).
Actually, it is used by capitalists in USA only from late 60s. Anarchists are using it for more then 150 years.
No, it was used in the meanings of “chaos” or “anti-state”, and often in equation of those two term by the media, anarchists have since their begining and until this day say their fight as being against primarily state, capitalism, organized religion, but always against all hierarchis.
Fascism has lost it’s meaning even more then the word socialism. But I’m not overly interested in that being that I’m not a fascist.
Of course it’s misleading. The word has in it the word “liberty”, and you support slavery. Yes, under condition that it’s not imposed on someone, but you do support it, and yet you promote yourself to people by a name that misleads them into thinking that you see liberty as central value.
If I shared your views, I could not forbare that kind of intellectual dishonesty and would use propertarianism or voluntaryism (but as I mentioned there are a number of alternatives- free market capitalism, stateless capitalism, freemarketism, laissezfaireism)
Anarchism, socialism, libertarianism, communism are terms that we use for our ideas, and they are all hijacked and had their meanings distorted.
I have to resort to calling myself by pleonasms such as libertarian socialist and anarcho-communist so that people from USA who are not versed in anarchist/ socialist history would know what I’m talking about.
Because you know of an anti-homosexual group calling their own way of life “gay” or “queer”?
no we dont. We explicitly declare that slavery contracts are unenforceable. However, being libertarians, and respecting, as we do, individual autonomy, we dont prevent people from having a non-slavery relationship and calling it “slavery.” also because definitions are subject-dependent.
liberty is the central value. Thats why we support the liberty to have voluntary hierarchies. You do not, preferring an authoritarian social order and therefore have no business calling yourself a libertarian.
but since you do not share our views, you have no problem with intellectual dishonesty and so you call yourself an anarchist.
because its manifestly evident that “gay” and “queer” are used by non-homosexuals.
You having inconsistent views is your problem.
Exaclty the word tampering I’m talking about. You do not see liberty as central, but consent and voluntaryism.
What’s your definition of “liberty”, Stsoc?
my view is consistent, its what I am looking at that changes
“liberty” is the freedom to act without coercive constraint. “consent” means that theres permission, so there isnt coercive constraint, the events are wanted. “voluntary” means the people involved chose the thing, meaning it cant have been coerced upon them, nor were their choices constrained by coercion. Youre the word tamperer, thats why you decline to define your terms and insist on equivocating voluntary relations as “slavery.”
Okay, I really don’t know how to respond to your post because you prettymuch sidestepped everything that I was going for but I’ll give this a try:
The ultimate point which your contention rests upon is that consent is not conducive to liberty, especially depending upon the economic system . Right-Libertarians would disagree with this and at some level you must too. Do I have a right to act as someone else’s slave? Yes or no? If you say no then you are restricting my liberty, whether or not you like it. I don’t like the idea of someone acting as someone else’s slave anymore than you do, but I will not interfere with them doing so exactly because I support liberty.
If we look deeper into liberty and choice then the fact is that there is ultimately no way to increase the powers of one person without denying the powers of another. Right-libertarians accept this and therefore instate a system of property and voluntary interaction, whereas you support a highly democratic system based around use-ownership. These are merely different approaches, but the goal of liberty is the same. The argument then revolves around which system will provide a greater amount of liberty. I’d argue that the economic destruction and primitivization, as well as the democratization of public life which would follow the full realization of your system would mean that it is inferior the provision of liberty. That is ultimately where the discussion lies, I do not see how you can state that right-libertarians do not value liberty.
As for terms, I’ve seen the term “libertarian” used relatively synonymously with right-libertarianism as early as the 1920’s, and I am unaware of a leftist usage before the 1880’s. The meaning of words changes and I don’t think that it’s a great loss since right-libertarians generally support what you allegedly support, liberty, they just get there in a different way. If it makes you feel any better we’ve had the meanings of capitalism, liberalism, and individualism stolen from us.
“Of course it’s misleading. The word has in it the word “liberty”, and you support slavery.”
I want to reemphasize this point, if you would stop someone from voluntarily becoming someone slave then you are restricting their liberty, and someone who voluntarily chooses to continually be someone else’s slave is expressing their liberty. It seems that you’re using the term “slave” for shock value more than anything else. That which is counter-intuitive need not be false.
Saying that someone who voluntarily gives up their liberty is a “slave” is an insult to real slaves.
You see people as property, you think things that are de fact inalienable should be de jure transferable (like labor), and yet you think think that the title over oneself should not be transferable. That’s called being inconsistent.
No, liberty is to be in control oneself, that is, not be under the authority of another. You see nothing wrong with people not being free as long as they consent to it. Therefore, you do not value liberty, you value consent.
No.
No, “I am” restricting your rectriction of your liberty. Not only is that not the same as restricting your liberty, but it is exactly the opposite of it.
Why is voluntarism not enough?
Where and when precisely.
June 9, 1858 the first number of Le Libertaire was published, and it was an anarcho-communist jurnal. And to this day the word is still used by anarcho-communists in Europe, e.g. the group “Libertarian Alternative” (or Alternative libertaire in their language) in France.
It is a loss, because you hijacked our name for yourself and you do not support liberty, and have no connection with out views for which we invented the name you hijacked.
Capitalism and individualism, no, capitalism was always about property, and not about markets, and individualism is not a political idea. But liberalism yes, and Friedman fought against that, he many times called himself a liberal and explained to people that it’s meaning is perverted in the USA.
This borders on doublethink. You state an obvious contradiction and expect someone to think that proves that there is no contradiction. He expresses his consent, but not his liberty, because he has become a slave, and that diametrically opposite of freedom.
As I told you already, stop being such an ignoramus and read something first before talking at all, let alone in a such condescending manner.
Self-sale contracts have existed in almost all laws in history and have been practiced troughout history, and those people who sold themselves (voluntarily gave up their liberty) did not became “fake slaves” or “make-believe slaves”, but real, full-fledged slaves, property of their owners.
“No, liberty is to be in control oneself, that is, not be under the authority of another. You see nothing wrong with people not being free as long as they consent to it. Therefore, you do not value liberty, you value consent.”
My god this is a fools definition of liberty.
My earlier post got deleted so here’s the abridged version
- No, voluntary slavery is not a negation of liberty because it is continuously voluntary and the fact that because of this one instance you would deny libertarianism is astoundingly foolish. Slavery as we’re talking about here is something which people would have to want to do. This sort of arrangement is not illegal today and yet it practically never happens. Therefore it is just as legitimate to say that people should not be able to walk down the street as not be slaves. Skeptical Metal is not being an ignoramus for chipping in here and mentioning the thing which you would apparently reject the whole system for is indeed an insult to real slaves because the two institutions only resemble eachother semantically. You’re just saying that you don’t like what two people do and that therefore you reject the whole system.
You do not support liberty and you are not a libertarian, you just support whatever your ideology tells you is okay
- Wage slavery is an absolutely foolish argument as well and I didn’t see any economic argument in the section which you linked to me. Comparing people’s natural need for food which they must work with others to slavery and being forced at the point of a gun to do things for other people is not only comical, but vulgar and foolish. What is even more sad about this, is that communism would not end the horror that is “wage slavery” unless it would have ended in the capitalist society too. Much more likely is that communism would exacerbate wage slavery.
He already called me an “ignoramus” for making an inquiry about what he advocates. It’s fine, I don’t take anything this trollbot says seriously anymore.
You’re a better man than I am, SkepticalMetal. I never took this trollbot seriously.
I don’t think he’s a troll, but I also don’t think he’s being intellectually honest. A lot of his “arguments” are simply retorts, as if he expects a retort to shut up his opponent. Or maybe his retorts are meant to show (to who? himself?) how much he’s willing to stand up to people who disagree with him. That hardly qualifies as intellectual honesty. Nevertheless, it’s how a lot of leftists behave around non-leftists.
As I see it, everyone is always in control of himself. That includes slaves.
If Walt Kowalski growled at me to get off his lawn, would you say that I’m no longer in control of myself?
Normally I would agree, but seeing as he prefers to insult rather than discuss, I prefer not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
True, he has resorted to insults at times. I see that as an attempt by him to browbeat his opponents into intellectual submission - “Agree with my arguments/definitions/premises/etc. or I’ll call you an idiot!” This again seems to be common in leftist circles, and I think it again just goes to show how much they focus on power relations over ideas themselves.
I honestly think he’s right…That’s been my libertarian view…Follow teh constitution, which protects peoples liberty, property, and life. I don’t think a statless society can or could work. You’d just end up replacing the state with something else…I think the only way to achieve peace, liberty, and the protection of people is to have a centralized governemnt that is checked by a constitution and smaller states. aka America (pre-civil war) Not to say that everything they did was right, but the ideals were there. You need some regulation to maek sure companies follow the ethical code that you talk about.
Everything that the US federal government has done up to the present day has been in accordance with (some interpretation of) the US Constitution.
Actually, that’s the view of liberty held by classical philosophy, the enlightement, and anarchism. Yours is the fools definition of liberty because it based on propaganda, and more importantly it’s contradictory. The very existence of the possibility to voluntarily forfeit your liberty shows that consent and liberty are not only not the same, but can be (in the case where someone consents to forfeir his liberty) diametrically opposite. And it is clear from the propertarian views that you value consent, and not liberty. Therefore, voluntaryism is the suitable term for your views, not our term libertarianism.
All slavery is a negation of liberty, whether voluntary or not. Voluntary slavery is just not a negation of consent.
Walking down the street is the same as being someone’s property, yeah right. And someone says that the comparison of wage-slavery with chattel slavery is far-fetched.
This makes absolutely no sense.
For being a wise-ass and making “smart” comments without knowing about what are you talking about.
I don’t know of any enlightenment philosopher who is definining liberty as you have. This is why Skeptical Metal is right and your statement is contradictory; the definition of slave:
“a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them”
This can’t happen in the voluntaryist society. Period. No one can be forced to obey anyone else in a whimsical way and beyond the need to enforce person and property. You can agree to serve someone and act as their slave, but no one can force to be or to continue being a slave. Thusly it is a fools definition and indeed an insult to those people whose homes were raided, families were killed, and they were forced into forcible servitude for the rest of their lives.
There are other definitions there, but this is the one that we are discussing because this is the important one. Skeptic wasn’t being a wise ass (I’d like to point out he’s done more to try to understand you than anyone else on these forums) you were being an ignoramus
The reason why communism will not end wage slavery and instead exacerbate it is because you’ll still have to work in order to eat in this society, but because of the economic destruction and stagnation that it would bring would mean people would have to work more for less, assuming that they could get anything more by working more. They would also be closer to slavery to begin with as they were thrown to the whim of the majority which has no tendency towards freedom by any definition.