LOL, so I can assume you wont mind if I talk about libertarianism but in its place use the word National-Socialism? Id say before they talk about this they should get their basic terminology right. You can`t talk about complete opposite of feudalism, but call it fedualism.
Albeit in their case it is probably a matter of their desire to wave the red cloth and provoke the lefties rather than a matter of ignorance. Which is probably even more damning.
Which of the things BP said are conservative or egalitarianist? He was merely pointing out that, by definition (or by implication/equivalence arising from definition), there can’t be uniform laws in anarchy, where uniformity is intentional, not a coincidental. That doesn’t mean he makes the case for gay, blacks, women, Catholics or anything else. This isn’t even remotely conservative egalitarianism.
Getting back to the matter at hand, I’d say it’s nonsense to allow for not previously agreed uniform law in anarcho-capitalism. This would imply that even the state would be the product of a free market. It would also mean that the current states do have a free market, that is, a free market that has already decided its uniform laws. And so it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism.
Indeed, in any theory, if you have a contradiction, then you can basically prove anything you wish, according to the principle of explosion. That is, E p, (p ^ !p) → q, for all q.
And so it is that if the market can’t properly cope with mob rule, then that anarchic community isn’t stable, it could degenerate at any time into a state. So in fact we should discuss whether anarchy is stable, rather than postulate the existence of a semi-statist anarchy.
I hope this clarifies the matter, or at least my point of view.
You got that from your crystal ball?
For laughs… tell me where will nations be all this time.
That portion of the discussion has been going on for months, perhaps not explicitly in this thread. Wherever Giles, Byzantine, myself, Stranger are, Juan and Brainpolice are rarely far behind. It’s the reason why so many topics simply cannot be discussed because a flame war is sought out by particular parties, anxious to censor a particular view through astro-turfing.
Not necessarily. Although, to argue that the state did not come out of the free market, is to argue that the state has either (1) always existed or (2) predates the free market.
I suck at math. [:(]
Semi-statism is a construct of Juan and BP’s imaginations. No one here is talking about coercive behaviour, only that some of us may believe that post-state, people will choose voluntary hierarchies. This is what is so adamantly rejected by BP and Juan. It’s my personal belief (which could be wrong) that they aren’t too keen on people living in a manner they do not approve of. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.
Do you take on work or projects voluntarily?
The answer to that is self-evident. Are you going to make a point or just ask silly questions ?
This isn’t about becoming feudal lords.
I never said you were.
Right, so the market won’t function. I mean, we believe it will function, except it won’t function when it comes to rewarding the intelligent and punishing the unintelligent. Or rewarding the physically durable, and punishing the frail. Yeah, the market just stops working. All costs are equal…
I’ve never indicated my social values, which I will say are a lot more narrow than some, and yet my desire to impose them on others, is probably the weakest of anyone I have debated here. What one chooses to do is their own business, even if I would not choose to do it. And I live by that.
Right libertarianism is a left libertarian myth. There are libertarians, and there are quasi-socialists, social planners, syndicalists, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, envirofascists, red anarchists and such that have really taken to hiding out under the alliance of a libertarian left banner.
To paint me in the same class as Byzantine, or Giles when I rarely even make my personal preferences or agendas known, is indicative of the anti-intellectualism of the people who attack my arguments.
The modern Western states like the USA and Great Britain will collapse from internal dissent, corruption and fiscal overreach. Nation-states, in the traditional sense such as the various kingdoms on the Saudi peninsula, the Dutch, the Finns, etc., will gain relevance but find themselves having to compete for capital and make low time-preference decisions regarding its deployment.
And as I’ve said before, if this is an outcome with which you are not comfortable, you should work to strengthen the secular, centralized state.
Juan, I don’t want to take anything in this discussion for granted.
I might do both, but if I do the latter, rest assured it will come at no additional cost to your ego.
Back on topic,
So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? Could we reason that as far as their satisfaction extends, so does your pay? And the inability to satisfy customers, could compromise your ability to earn?
I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject. Libertarianism is inherently in favor of equality in the sense of removing this ruler/subject divide and establishing a normative respect for individual sovereignty, which applies to all individuals.
No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X.
Of course, but still there’s no authority involved in the matter, only voluntary agreement.
This premise is simply wrong. Cooperation only requires mutual agreement. It does not follow from the fact that I cooperate with someone that we are not on mutual terms. Cooperation is the product of both of us excersizing our individual sovereignty, it is not possible without the consent being on both sides. In this fundamental sense, it is not heirarchical at all - all parties privy to the phenomenon are equal in terms of their liberty to associate or not.
Okay, I won’t argue about that. That was my impression about this particular discussion.
I agree. But while there can be a free market at some point in time, I assume a stable anarchy provides mechanisms to counteract devolving into a state. Sure, a few like-minded people could still leave and form a state. Or the primordial free market could have been weak enough to fall prey to statism. But the point is a strong free market, by definition, can’t produce a state. Whether an example of this definition is possible remains to be seen.
Simply put, if, from axioms, you can derive a proposition that is both true and false, then you can prove anything you can imagine. This is why I warn against allowing for any contradictions with the definition/axioms. Well, that is more about logic, not math.
I got the impression this was about coercion. Hierarchy in itself can exist without coercion, so it’s not a problem for anarchism.
That’s the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Actually, you’re just doing what you usually do. You change the argument to suit your response.
The issue isn’t the people being equal with the state, it’s that the state institution seeks to remove differences between individuals, by laundering morality, property and responsibility through a collective “we the people” filter it controls.
You have just made some fanatical enemies on this board. lol
Yes, his words. I make specific arguments about specific concepts, they get ignored and I’m strawmanned as a commie.
What you do, is twist other people’s statements to suit your arguments, or outright construct strawmen. For months, I’ve challenged numerous times to back up your statements, and without fail, you retreat and ignore those requests for clarification and proof.
I almost wish you would stand your ground, and make your argument based on what has been said, rather than what you imagine was said, because then we could move on to new topics, instead of rehashing the same discussion, ad infinitum. I’m here to learn, and have changed and adapted my views many times when presented with a sound argument. Can you make the same claim to intellectual honesty?
You didn’t answer the question. Please try again.
Well surely someone is an authority on how you will execute the work, what the work will be? Or do people hire you to just do whatever you want?
Well, you should take this with a grain of salt. Formulating rigorous statements in this matter isn’t easy. Just take it as a statement that can be sufficiently accurate at some given moment. Of course, in this matter, anything can eventually fail. How soon and how easy does make the difference. But it doesn’t go to say theoretical models aren’t useful; we still use “perfect competition” to illustrate real-world concepts.