As I said, anarchy simply allows the possibility of escaping being purged. However, if that particular anarchy makes it really hard for you to protect yourself, let’s say due to uniform laws, it’s not an anarchy anymore.
Again, anarchy implies some degree of panarchism, i.e. the possibility of multiple jurisdictions in the same place and time. Once you rule that out, that’s no longer an anarchy, though it may be quite a libertarian society. It’s simply a voluntarily-funded government, but still a government, which has a monopoly over laws given by the mob rule. The laws might no longer arise from human action or conflict prevention, but from the whims of those paying for that service.
Of course, any group of people can go and set up their own non-pizza-eating, non-Catholic community. But if that’s truly an anarchy, then there are no strong guarantees the moral code they’ve imposed won’t disintegrate over time. Saying otherwise would be just as egalitarian/leftist/ as BP is claimed by others to be.
It’s not misleading. You admit that their means tend to be collectivist, and they are organized along collectivist lines. I’m not sure everyone would be willing afford the same leeway of collectivist ideology and intent to white nationalists that they do feminists.
That is exactly why we are libertarians, because we don’t advocate for liberty for one group, but for all.
It’s the same reason I can’t get down with agitating for unions or labour, when I know that capitalists are getting a bad end of the deal as well.
Well to be fair, liberty would benefit all groups that do not wish to impose their ends coercively upon others, so if I were trying to convert a WN I would try make my arguments pertinent to their concerns and make them understand why coercive means do not work. Same with feminists. The solution to their problem (i.e. the oppression of women) is the end of the state - and some feminists like Wendy McElroy recognize that.
Actually my primary argument has been that there can be different forms of organization that are consistant with the same theory of property rights. A worker’s coop or union can be consistant with neo-lockean property rights. It is the tendecy of you and some others to dismiss such things out of hand that is mistaken. It is erroneous to conflate neo-lockean property rights with the singular buisiness model that you prefer, to conflate property rights itself with your preferential buisiness model.
No, feminism is not collectivism along gender lines by definition any more than libertarianism is collectivism along political lines by definition. That is your bias. Gender feminism fits your definition, but not the whole of feminism. Wendy McElroy and Rockerick Long are not collectivists.
My position has consistantly been that libertarianism as a social theory inherently implies equal negative rights for humam beings. The relavant concepts like the NAP, self-ownership and homesteading apply to a human being, not to a specific group at the exclusion of others. My position has also been that the consistant application of these concepts generally also leads to the things associated with “positive liberty”, I.E. increases in oppurtuities and benefits for the masses. Not once have I endorsed the theory of positive rights, however, I have only established negative rights as a context for providing the positive benefits that people desire. All I am doing is logically applying and extending upon the principles.
Right, and this means that there is a historical reason for the existance of feminism beyond a mere irrational collectivism. There is nothing inherently wrong, collectivist or unlibertarian about the social cause of protecting the interests of women in and of itself. I would wager that earlier on, this social movement was more rational, because its reason for existing was much more obvious and it was more focued on removing legal constraints that effected women (and hence a cause perfectly compatible with libertarianism). Unfortunately, in some ways the feminist movement certainly devolved into a collectivist form of identity-politics. But still, this doesn’t mean that feminism as a whole is that way, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that feminism has no sensibility as a social cause. That loony leftist Herbert Spencer sure wasn’t a collectivist, yet he endorsed early feminism.
I don’t think so. Your elitism and hereditary natural elites are features of political conservatism despite the (unfounded) claim that this new conservatism will be ‘voluntary’.
And cultural conservatism was just the cultural side of the ancien regime. You know, the church provided the ‘cultural’ justification for the burning of heretics but priests never did the burning themselves – that was the state’s job. Division of labor I guess.
If there are cultural preferences associated with libertarianism such preferences surely are likely to be in line with free-thinking and trying new things instead of sticking to arbitrary traditionalism and “respect for authority”.
Wendy McElroy recognizes it because she is a libertarian/anarchist. Not because she is a feminist. This is the sort of collectivist conflation with libertarianism that really bothers me. I’m not talking about converting anyone. I’m saying that the same rationale (perception or reality of group oppression via the state) applied to WNs as feminists if that is the argument.
And surprisingly, the PC left have neglected to respond to that, because of course, they will support feminism, but not WN even if their rationale (not yours Jon) applies equally to both.
Apparently its fun when we arbitrarily pick and choose our causes and allies, and then claim the moral high ground of radical liberal forward thinking-ness.
You’re still setting up a false dichotomy (in this case, between feminism and libertarianism). Wendy McElroy is both a feminist and a libertarian. If you are unable to conceptualize that, then that’s your problem.
Yes, and? I could quite as easily claim that your pro drug stance are features of political liberalism, I would be correct. The sentence would, however, be meaningless to quite a great extent.
Well, the voluntary part makes all the difference. That’s a very nice thing you do there Juan, claiming anything you disagree with to be unfounded. Perhaps you don’t speak such good English so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, go read the topic over again.
“Trying new things”, what exactly would that be? Attempting to take as many drugs are possible and jumping off a bridge? That’s a very sustainable lifestyles Juan.
How so? Juan has some silly idea of libertarian culture flying in the face of “conservatism” without being able to support it. I fail to see why I can’t ridicule this silly position.
So it turns out I’m not equivocating. Rather, you’re trying to paint your political system as if it were just a ‘cultural preference’, but it is not.
You wouldn’t. Taking drugs or not is a private, individual decision and has nothing to do with the way society is organized (politics).
The thing is, feudalism, traditionalism, hierarchy and authority were and are maintained at the point of a gun (or a sword). They are also maintained using more subtle coercive means, such as religious fraud and children manipulation (mislabeled as ‘education’). Not to mention that according to you children are not capable of ‘rational argumentation’ so hitting them is OK.
Ever heard of the Enlightenment ?
Let’s see. You claimed that in a stateless society “land would be more expensive” so renting would be preferable to buying. Did you explain why higher land prices won’t lead to higher rents ? I feel tempted to call your economic analysis ‘silly’…