How can statism still exist in voluntaryism if voluntaryism is the complete opposite of statism?
C4SS is one of the worst libertarian websites. They are left-libertarian if that explains anything.
oh realy left libertarian? I am a right marxist an anarcho statist…No I am actually a capitalist communist… ?
From what I bothered to read his problem was with the word ‘voluntaryism’ as a descriptor of the stateless order. Ie, rather than read the whole piece, you can read his reply to a commenter and save 5 minutes of your life to something that’s actually interesting.
To boil my understanding of his position down to a sentence; The word voluntaryism is deceptive because humans are completely ruled by learned behavior and social conventions and thus have no free will, therefore no action is truly voluntary.
I would recommend that he has a listen to Sam Harris on free will. Then he will see that voluntary action does of course exist.
No person says that someone should be able to beat up a random person or their wife. The means of dealing with it would be to appeal to a dispute resolution organization or for the society to ostracize said violent person. But no one ever says that the husband is a-okay because of ‘voluntarism’. That is a strawman.
Spontaneous order is not nihilistic. It prescribes two limits, and thus is moral in nature. One is that planning mechanisms will fail because of their inability to attain information in real time and their tendency towards shaping behavior into it the planning by fascistic means. But it also says that there is a separation between the intention and creation of society, and so eliminates certain totalitarian schemes or traditions that depend on the former. Really what Kenyon is saying, in reverse, is that such planning schemes – and thus their coercive power – are necessary to defeat nihilism. And in that way is really justifying the state. Spontaneous Order is also not used in absentia of a ‘moral order’, but is really an observation that necessary before going forward with how to think about a society. Saying it is nihilistic is like saying elementary logic is nihilistic, because it doesn’t say anything about how to behave. Well, you have to build up to such a system.
I have heard this same person say that preventing rape is ‘coercion’, which is bad enough. And shows ignorance of that concept before moving on to more difficult applications of it. He says that property is something to be respected or else you meet their gun. But what type of people are trying to disrespect property rights… those who want to harm the owner and/or take over their the title to their property. Which requires the same, whether it is a mob or an individual who wishes to steal the property. So that is self-defeating. If ownership is illegimate, ancaps have said that expropriation is legitimate. But it is not legitimate when it merely contradicts itself or wishes to appease the lunatic principles of anarcho-primitivists.
Left-libertarianism is misguided for three reasons:
Leftists see it as a backdoor to promoting ‘evil capitalist ideology’ and not an attempt to hold their hands, as left-libertarians like to think in their infinite condescencion. No amount of pretending to read leftist and feminist authors is going to change the fact that you are still bourgeois ideologists in their eyes. They will see it like corporations using ‘zen’ or ‘yoga’ in the office.
All of the proponents are garbage in terms of philosophy or other matters; at best they are well-read in political economy and that’s it. This is why their definitions are always screw-y and they flirt with moral relativism. They haven’t even picked up basics in the history of philosophy, even while they repudiate it (for the benefit of leftist alliance). They inherit from liberals the sort of dilettante quote mining approach to philosophy.
Libertarianism holds liberty as the highest value, as per it’s name, and not equality. Egalitarians hold equality as the highest value. The highest value then trumps secondary values like liberty. Because of this, they generally attack liberty as vulgar. This is fine within the context of their position, but they should not pretend that their opinions lead to libertarianism. Egalitarianism always leads to the idea that liberty must be curtailed, either through the state or majority opinion, to promote equality above all else. It also acts as a bias, first and foremost, in which you look for things to promote what you desire rather than the truth. Libertarians nor egalitarians oppose equality or liberty out right, even though egalitarians like to think that libertarians oppose ‘real liberty’ and ‘equality’. Libertarians believe that equality and liberty supplement each other, but that liberation and the conscious of the individual is integral before there is a definition of equality. They don’t believe that it is unimportant, as propagandists often suppose in their smear campaigns. Since equality can often be unjust if it is for it’s own sake (or the sake of some ruling ideology which supposes people ‘equal’ to mask it’s own power, such as the state), instead for the growth of human beings and their liberty. Which it often is, since it is easy to hold liberty as a lower or non-existent preference if one holds equality as the highest value. Especially when seeing them as antagonistic. Since equality without liberty is conformity.
In reality, instead of equality or liberty, truth (using a coherent methodology) and self-knowledge (understanding one’s own processes of thought) should be the first values. Since they are necessary to exploration into liberty and equality and into free will itself. But no one will say that. They will say “you want liberty to get your voluntary slaves for nothin’ and your poached chimps for free, man!” Or “you love the market, because the market will make black people back into slaves, you neo-confederates!” Of course, such people do not even examine the methodology for truth, nor do they have much self-knowlege. It is just rehearsed reactions.
In that case, why advocate for anything to change? Qué será será, right?
I’m 15 minutes in. He’s just said that free will doesn’t exist because everything we do, experience and believe is predetermined. Then he says that we don’t have free will because our thoughts can’t be predetermined. (Ie, we don’t know what our next thought is going to be).
18 minutes in he makes no sense. “The brain” decides something before “you” do? Ok… Is he making the case that the “I” exists as some magical elf inside the brain, but is separate from it somehow?
26 minutes in: Determinism is necessary for free will…
28:22… I now choose to close down the video, because this is a waste of time. Either I have a completely different idea of what free will is compared to Sam Harris, or I’m way too stupid to understand what he’s talking about. Probably both.
That’s too bad. You know what you should do? Stop visiting websites. Websites are of course a product of technology, which you of course shun. In fact, the computer you’re using right now to read this is technology. So you should probably destroy it, since it’s a product of civilization and is therefore evil, and the State is only using it to spy on you and control you anyway.
Perhaps you should go live in the woods where Reddit and C4SS can’t bother you.
Perhaps you should go live in the woods
I’m going very soon. Happy yet?
Considering I read that two months ago. And four months ago. And five months ago. And 8 months ago…no, it’s not very reassuring.
Give a date.
Considering I read that two months ago. And four months ago. And five months ago. And 8 months ago…no, it’s not very reassuring.
Give a date.
July.
Of what year?
oh realy left libertarian? I am a right marxist an anarcho statist…No I am actually a capitalist communist… ?
Left libertarianism is just socialism disguised as libertarianism. It’s collectivist and supports mob rule/democracy. Kevin Carson, Charles Johnson and most others at C4SS call or would call themselves socialists.
Of what year?
What year do you think?
Okay seriously what the crap is this. What is with the constantly answering questions with questions. Just answer the damn question. You’ve been saying the same thing for over 8 months now. I linked to several of them. Obviously we have no idea what year you’re talking about. Obviously when most people hear the word “soon”, they don’t think it means over 8 months from now. But evidently to you it can.
So tell us. When (exactly) are you actually going to stop using the technology you shun and go live in the woods?
If I knew, I wouldn’t ask. Care to answer the question?
omg I’m totally using that.
I’d support that. I’ve been meaning to use it for a couple of weeks (the last time I saw the film).