Thors is correct, you are simply misrepresenting me and largely ignoring the content of my arguments. I am not “just another anti-capitalist”, I have a very specific viewpoint. If you really want to talk about my youtube experience, and if you really knew about it, you’d know that I have consistantly debated against the Chomsky/Zinn crowd there and dismissed them as state-socialists. My expressed viewpoint on youtube is left-libertarian market anarchism, mixed with anarchism without adjectives or pluralism. I have consistantly and explicitly defended the concept of free markets and individualism.
Give me a break with your weak arm-chair psychoanalysis and repetition of a ridiculous premise that’s already been debunked (I.E. that anything that’s not socially and economically conservative is the product of the state).
You’re just repeating the same tired old arguments and completely side-stepping my points.
No, we’re not talking just about economics. We’re talking about libertarian social theory, I.E. interpersonal ethics. You should know better than to drift into economism. Furthermore, there is no reason for you to act as if economics is above or something completely unrelated to philosophy given that it’s entirely dependant on epistemology.
It seems to me that no one could possibly know if a stateless society such as the one being argued for would result in a more “egalitarian” society or a “less egalitarian” society, as we have no way of knowing all of the ways in which the state distorts the “market” of human interactions and whatnot.
It is possible that some sort of natural spontaneous “egalitarianism” would occur (much like spontaneous order can), and it is also possible that their would be other inequalities that would emerge. We simply can not know the end result for sure, but we CAN know that whatever the result, it would be a far more ethical and just society, as each person would be free to live their lives as they will without an outside agent coercively aggressing against them.
Just a thought, anyway.
Then stop the nonsense and refute it again.
Which is neutral in this case.
I was, and I started this topic so you’re just taking it off course, as I already stated. One must wonder why, you’re taking meaningful economic discussion off course in favour of inconclusive arguments about how feudalism violates “your rights”.
While your argument has the spirit of trying to remain value-free and neutral, I disagree because we CAN make some general statements about how the state warps the economy. We can determine that the state buttresses certain areas of the economy, and hence the logical result of removing the state from those areas is that they don’t have as much support and have to compete on their own merits. We can determine that the state restricts certain oppurtunies for people in certain areas, and hence the logical result of removing the state is an increase in oppurtunities in those areas. You yourself assert that the result is a more ethical and just society, and non-aggression is not the only criteria for something being ethical and just. The removal of arbitrary state privilege and monopoly logically implies a more pluralistic order. In turn, a more pluralistic order is inherently less heirarchical when viewed as a whole, as there is more independance from specific concentrations.
It already has been refuted in the very post you repeat it in response to. You haven’t responded to my argument, just reasserted your premise.
You are not being neutral, you’re asserting that libertarianism inherently implies conservatism, extreme heirarchy, feudalism and so on. You’re also overlooking that those systems and ideologies are not consistant with the basic interpersonal theory of libertarianism. Conservative communitarianism is conceptually incompatible with libertarianism, and feudal land arrangements are incompatible with any consistant homesteading theory.
Give me a break. You’re full of shit.
Well, I am saying that while we may be able to make general statements of how the state warps the economy and even warps the “market” of human interaction, we cannot possibly calculate to what degree it does to either with any degree of accuracy. While it is true that certain privileges and opportunities are restricted by the state, it is also true that others are propagated and favored by the state, so there is no telling the level of egalitarianism or hierarchy that would exist in a post-stateless society, respectfully, but we can tell that each person would have liberty to be free of coercive aggression. While in some respects people may become “more equal,” in other respects they just as easily may become “less equal.” I just do not see how anyone can calculate it with any degree of accuracy, but we can know a priori that it is a much more ethical and just society, regardless of our personal preferences for specific outcomes of equality/inequality.
I don’t think feudalism is the correct term to describe land production under the free market, although it may be feudal-like in some senses. Feudalism was principally about security. The system got started under the Roman empire at a time when people would sell themselves as slaves to large land holders, slaves being exempt from paying taxes. Then the church reformed this arrangement after the collapse of the empire into a milder form called serfdom.
The fact is that at any given time there were very few free land owners, however competition between land owners resulted in many of the middle ages’ growth periods. The colonization by bastides instituted new forms of property in what would have been under-utilized land.
The problem of land is more complicated in America than in Europe. In Europe the local communes and cities can all be traced back to some form of private land estate and it is obvious they would have to be restored in order to function, but in America the colonization of the land was done by government. There is a sense of entitlement amongst American property holders that tells them that they cannot be told what to do with their land, but they expect the benefits of land tenancy such as roads and water to be delivered to them. The way the land was subdivided is also much messier, based on an abstract cartesian grid with little relevance to the land’s actual structure.
I wouldn`t say that. Actually what happened was that serfdom was introduced to tie down freemen - tenant farmers - down to the land of the latifundist. (Before that latifundia replaced small farms due to state machinations.) This process was already started under Diocletian before Rome accepted Christianity. But serfdom is not the only aspect of feudalism.
Because it is politically correct not to discuss differences in religion, race or sexual preference, doesn’t change the fact that they are not the same, they lead to different social orders, decision, and capabilities.
Which is at a deficit in which situation isn’t my point. It’s that its left mythology (and ridiculous taboo) that they are to be considered non-factors and anyone discussing them is persona-non-grata in the liberty movement.
Statements like these, really make me empathize with Walter Blocks recent conflict with the PC police. Nowhere have I condemned any group, and yet you associate eugenics with my statements, which if you’re even marginally intelligent, you have to admit are not unreasonable or unfounded.
They are just undesirable, and offend your sensibilities.
Yeah, I was particularly moved by your argument that instead of attacking capitalism and the state withering away, one could attack the state and wither capitalism away.
Anti-capitalist. You just try to be coy about it.
Which is precisely the point being made here and elsewhere on the forum, by Giles, myself and others.
The difference is, when you don’t like the conclusions drawn about where the state interferes and distorts, you attack.
Yes, the state feeds off the labour of the productive, and distributes to the unproductive whether they are rich or poor. Good luck getting a red libertarian to buy into an honest and rational class theory.
sirmonty, I am piling on your post here, but a socialist will always insist he can calculate. Without the “superior knowledge” socialism claims to have about order, structure and production, none of it’s ideas can even be considered for a fraction of a moment as based on sound thinking.
And in a sense, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the answers to this perfect knowledge, is always some form of social planning, or social organization.
Juan and BP are all for pluralism for different races and sexual preferences, but certainly not for religions. Certainly not for traditional cultural (tribal) forms.
Beautiful and profound.
Can someone [not Brainpolice, Liberty Student or Giles Stratton] please explain the views of both sides of this argument, because other than ad hominem, it seems that the sliver of contention is infintesimally small.
Well, socialism’s shenanigans are quite silly, for sure.
I really don’t care if an anarchist society leads to some “natural egalitarian order” or the opposite. I just know that I want a just and ethical system based on liberty. The way the dice specifically fall in terms of the outcome is immaterial to me.
EDIT: to LS
That is verbatim, my position as well.