I define the “anarcho-” prefix as Rothbard does, not by that definition. That is, as the absence of a State. Or, as per the OED: “A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).” Voluntary Kingship can perfectly well be in the absence of a State: someone whom people pay to reign as King.
Perhaps you mean a place where the populace would be enlightened enough to voluntarily follow a philosopher king such as Rothbard?
Essentially, yes, the King would be of the Rothbardian tradition and would propagate the values of Anarcho-Capitalism.
Voluntary Kingship can perfectly well be in the absence of a State: someone whom people pay to reign as King.
…and…
Essentially, yes, the King would be of the Rothbardian tradition and would propagate the values of Anarcho-Capitalism.
Voluntary kingship can perfectly work in the absence of the State, but a commune can’t?
Coming from you:
“Voluntary” commune is an oxymoron. Just like “voluntary” government.
Orly? Having one monarch, one ruler, one king, would be a voluntary choice, but having a commune of equal weight amongst decision making would not be voluntary?
How do you know the king would be of Rothbardian tradition and not of Platonic tradtion that’s laid out in The Republic?
Orly? Having one monarch, one ruler, one king, would be a voluntary choice, but having a commune of equal weight amongst decision making would not be voluntary?
It’s because of my newly created definition of communism. Like I said, I define communism as a certain type of State. If you want to define monarchism as a one-rule State, then go ahead. I would be against it in that case. But that is not my definition of monarchism, which is as a voluntary King.
How do you know the king would be of Rothbardian tradition and not of Platonic tradtion that’s laid out in The Republic?
Because in the latter case it would be a State which I would try to abolish. (At least if has the aforementioned Rothbardian characteristics of the State).
So you invent definitions of words to fit your own whims? Therefore you have an ever rotating set of terms to mold the language in your favor, because you define them on how you feel they should be based on your views.. Again, this logic defies reality.
Actually in a philosophical sense they are objective theories to you, because they are external to your perception and mind. So your earlier argument that my ideas were “subjective” is a straw man.
I just don’t like it when people change the meanings of words to fit their argument. It’s asinine and perpetuates falsehood. You’re defining terms to your liking so it fits your views of how things should be according to you.
It turns into a semantics debate just like when people equate capitalism to corporatism, but you’d cry falsehood no sooner than someone would do the same when you say a commune is coercive. It becomes pointless to even discuss things when the people you converse with can’t even agree on what “thing” means.
a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
(This reminds me to always stick with OED definitions of these words).
Accepting your definition of “communism” arguendo (unlike some people), I have a question. What do you personally call a contiguous area of land that’s jointly owned by a group of people?
Okay, so if some people who have such a joint ownership of some land call it a “commune”, you’d be okay with that? (This isn’t a leading or trick question, I promise.)
How you define “communism” is entirely up to you. I, for one, can accept arguendo any definition you provide there.
Well, tecnically I guess the inexistence of private property is impossible, so I suppose it would not actually be a commune. (And a commune in itself cannot actuallly exist due to this fact).
I guess I’ll go by the OED definition; mine seemed to get a lot of criticism.
The non-existence of private property certainly is possible - in that case, everything would be unowned.
Well, yes, certainly in the case of unowned land. But I am referring to property specifically in the hands of humans. It has to be privately owned. (Jointly owned is privately owned).
Hoppe’s theories such as argumentation ethics are ultimately untenable for the same reason that Molyneaux’s theories are ultimately fallacious, just because someone does something, or passes judgement upon something for themselves does not imply that this is the case for all people. For instance there is no reason why there could not be an ethic where one agency, the government, could do something others could not, or that I could kill someone but you could not. When men act, they act for themselves, so for instance my ethic could be that it’s okay for me to kill but not for you to kill, this is not a contradictory ethic. Men do not work in aggregates, but for themselves.
@RD
As soon as you ask why you should not read more than one authors work you are a dogmatist. If you were to talk to a Marxist who said he was comfortable with never reading anyone but Marx then you would probably laugh out loud. What makes you inherently different?
But here’s a challenge to you, if you’re correct then Rothbard’s ethics should be almost entirely without flaw, certainly not large enough that a dedicated reader like youreself couldn’t present something that an internet scholar like myself could possibly exploit. So I challenge you to prove that Rothbardian ethics are “true” and present direct moral implications on all men. If you prove this then I’ll give you a reward of your choice. If I disprove this then you have to read a book of my choosing. Do you accept?
I prettymuch agree, I feel that some sort of communitarian anarchism is natural in humans (when I say this I mean a capitalistic model with special emphasis on collective goods through charities and community pools and the like) and that which is natural is inherently embedded through civilization itself.
In my second sentence I mean that I was still an anarchist for moral and ethical reasons if we consider this to be utterly subjective. I am an anarchist fundumentally becuase of the fact that I believe that a minimalist law is the most minute law possible to maintain cooperation between men, if it is allowed to go beyond this a war of man against man begins through control of the law. I am simply saying that once we say rational preference is equivilent to ethical judgements then everyone believes everything for ethical reasons.
Hello Neo. No, I hope I did not come across as a dogmatist in my reading habits. I really do enjoy other literature. I read anything from Rothbard to Tolkien to Shakespeare! (The former two are my very favourite authors). And at some point I am going to get around to reading this copy of Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia that I have laying around. So, no, I never said that I am “comfortable with never reading anyone but Rothbard.” In fact, I wrote previously in this thread:
I am indeed willing to read anything, even Marx or Keynes, not so say I will agree.
Anyway, as to your challenge, are you suggesting that I write an essay on the topic? I would be entirely willing to do that. I would, however, require some time to get my Rothbardian research in order. Certainly I would need some time to read FaNL and EoL, as they would be most pertinent with regards to this topic. Yes, I am willing to undertake your challenge, but I am not willing to do it with haste. Such would be unscholarly of me. Do you accept my version of this challenge?
We can do any format you wish, I was simply suggesting that you should present his case, if you wish to do so through an essay then more power to you. My response will likely be shorter but I’ll probably vaguely emulate whatever format you use.
