Exactly.
My point is that in this among other things, it’s not enough to oppose the state.We need to oppose cultural authoritarianism and the state too.An-caps don’t get that and until they do they’re cutting the ground from under themselves.
Anarchists don’t endorse statist aspects, so how do you not endorse cultural aspects? That would have to mean that you endorse affirmative action, right? Before you just deny that, what are you saying? You want to get rid of racism. How to do that? You saying free markets get rid of racism?
That’s inequality. Did you define the word to mean the opposite?
There’s no “we” in freedom. Please oppose whatever you want and leave me (and everyone else) alone. I’ll do the same in return. Deal?
Z.
I have no idea who the author or the original post believes himself to be arguing with. Nor do I have any idea what a ‘right’ libertarian is supposed to be.
It’s been argued here by some.It’s the traditional argument for capitalism.
Links?
“Links?” Again.It’s happened here.LS, is a prime example.
Lets see some links if its that easy.
“Links?” To what?
Links to “vulgar libertarians” discounting luck.
- Equality is the fulfillment of autonomy what your talking about is uniformity.
Autonomy is independence, to fulfill it would be total independence, that is no constraints - NIHILSIM.
- I’m talking about getting rid of barriers as much as is possible.Racism,sexism etc are immoral and unnecessary.
Yet, they would be replaced with other barriers. Attitudes about “equality” (an immoral and unnecessary idea) would be form a barrier, diminishing my autonomy.
- I’m talking about getting rid of barriers as much as is possible.Racism,sexism etc are immoral and unnecessary.
Yet, they would be replaced with other barriers. Attitudes about “equality” (an immoral and unnecessary idea) would be form a barrier, diminishing my autonomy.
I am highly suspicious of any ‘libertarian’ who considers the pet preferences of non-violent individuals to be a ‘barrier’ to his vision of society.. It strikes me as a rebirth of Millenialism in a secular, libertarian guise; the inability to mind one’s own business and leave well enough alone. The same spirit that prompted prohibition animates many of these ‘left’ libertarians. Also the existence of ‘racism’ in the West, outside of liberal PC attitudes towards minorities, is grossly exagerrated.
Robert M. Thornton wrote of Albert Jay Nock that,
Albert Jay Nock was not a reformer and found offensive any society with a “monstrous itch for changing people.” He had “a great horror of every attempt to change anybody; or I should rather say, every wish to change anybody; for that is the important thing.” Whenever one “wishes to change anybody, one becomes like the socialists, vegetarians, prohibitionists; and this, as Rabelais says, ‘is a terrible thing to think upon.’” The only thing we can do to improve society, he declared, “is to present society with one improved unit.” Let each person direct his efforts at himself or herself, not others; or as Voltaire put it, “Il faut cultiver notre jardin.”
I ardently agree. Let people be, and stop poking around in their business. They might be inclined to do the same for you. Blowback is not merely a military concept, it has applications across the spectrum of human society.
Okay. In that case, I’d say that free markets tend to maximize the amount of meritocracy in a society. How does that sound? I don’t see how this can be a bad thing.
Just because you’ve never read anything there doesn’t mean nothing has been written there. 
Speaking absolutely, there are no guarantees in life. None. The quest for an absolute guarantee of something is the quest for certainty. Yet the future is inherently uncertain.
On another note, who is “he” that you’re referring to? I didn’t make mention of any specific individual.
Those cultural factors could well lead to economic opportunities that can be exploited by others. I don’t see how cultural factors can constitute guarantees (see above) against such things happening.
Well, it does address the notion that capitalism is inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. – a notion which I surely hope you don’t agree with.
That aside, while I think investigating the causes and effects of such discrimination is an interesting subject in its own right, I don’t see how it necessarily relates to anarchism. I think we might actually be at odds over the meaning of “anarchism” as a result. I don’t consider anarchism to cover every aspect of human life, while it seems like maybe you do.
Refusing to honor the employee side of an employer-employee agreement.
Of course I’m not saying that. I don’t see how you could take my words to mean that, however. My point was that the existence of racism, sexism, etc. is not the same as societal dehumanization. The latter seems to point to at least a majority of people being racist, sexist, etc. I fail to see how that’s the case today in Western societies (if you will).
While I appreciate your response, it doesn’t tell me what your treatment of causality is. Can you please provide that?
Well, I was trying to understand your position in the context of methodological individualism. But apparently I failed. So can you explain what you mean by “racism in general keeps people down”? As far as I’m concerned, that will require providing definitions for “racism in general” and “to keep (someone) down”. Also, what’s the difference to you between “racism in general” and “systematic racism”?
Okay, I appreciate the clarification, but you still haven’t given me your definition of “moral”. Can you please do so?
What you mean is that your definition of “harm” is broader than physical damage. That’s fine, there are no right or wrong definitions. Can you explain how, in your opinion, I harm a person by “treating them badly”? What does “treating (someone) badly” mean to you? For example, would you say that people can cause negative emotions in others?
I’d say that defending freedom means defending scoundrels when they do things that don’t violate the rights of others, but against which those others want to violate the scoundrels’ rights. That means, for example, opposing laws that criminalize “hate speech”, but not opposing boycotts.
It’s all well and good IMO to believe that people shouldn’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. However, it’s easier to get away with (in your terminology) violating the rights of scoundrels because fewer people tend to defend them.
Basically, more attention is focused on what you call “rights” vs. what you call “morality” because the former are deemed more important than the latter. That doesn’t mean the latter should be ignored or dismissed, of course.
My point is that I don’t think you should criticize both at the same time, because anarcho-capitalists/non-left-libertarians are hardly the same as statists. Your primary critique seems to be directed at the latter, so I think you should stick to that and leave statists out of it (as we’re all opposed to them).
Strictly speaking, it’s logically possible to jump all the way from the Earth to the Moon. Logical possibility has nothing necessarily to do with physical possibility.
Anyway, I think the distinction between positive and negative ability is very important in treatments of causality. For example, if I don’t have a million dollars, does that mean you’re keeping me from getting it (assuming we’ve never met nor otherwise interacted)? Does it mean you’re depriving me of that million dollars?
Is there necessarily only one way in which one feels/is viewed within society?
If it’s a voluntary system, what would be the consequences if you violate its totalitarian dictates?
By that reasoning, any and all property ownership involves an authoritarian relationship between the property owner(s) and the property non-owners. (Note that the latter group necessarily consists of all individuals who do not own the property.) Even more basic than that, all people have inherently authoritarian relationships between themselves and others. That is, all people seek their own self-interest over others’ self-interest. Of course, these conclusions depend on how you define “lessers” and “superiors” above.
My point is twofold. First, given the fact of subjective value, whether one person subscribes to a particular standard of “fulfilling life” does not obligate anyone else to subscribe to that same standard. Second, even under such a given standard, it’s an open question IMO whether one can figure out what constitutes the absolutely most fulfilling life possible – for a specific person or for any person.
Okay, so you then agree that no one is prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense. Therefore you don’t consider it morally/ethically justified to violate the rights of someone who’s doing something you don’t like but not violating anyone’s rights himself.
“Okay. In that case, I’d say that free markets tend to maximize the amount of meritocracy in a society. How does that sound? I don’t see how this can be a bad thing.”
I don’t think it is a bad thing.
I’ve never read anything by non left libertarians linking barriers to entry and criticizing meritocracy before.Or the other subjects in my manifesto.
“Just because you’ve never read anything there doesn’t mean nothing has been written there. :P”
I’d like to see something written about it though.It’s never been discussed here.
How is it minor? Isn’t economics at the very heart and center of human life?"
True but he’s only talking about the freed market ,it’s only a tendency not a guarantee and he’s not discussing the causes/effects of racism and the like.
“On another note, who is “he” that you’re referring to? I didn’t make mention of any specific individual.”
Walter Block.
“I mean, you don’t see how such discrimination will yield lower wages for such people, which will then (ceteris paribus) entice others to hire them preferentially?”
"How does that not directly address what you’re talking about? "
That doesn’t touch on the causes of these problems,their effects and how it relates to anarchism.
“Well, it does address the notion that capitalism is inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. – a notion which I surely hope you don’t agree with.”
I’m pretty much on the fence at this point though if you accept what anarchists have been saying for centuries then you’d say yes and I’m tending that way but not yet fully on board with it.Capitalism is not the same as a free market.
“That aside, while I think investigating the causes and effects of such discrimination is an interesting subject in its own right, I don’t see how it necessarily relates to anarchism.”
Dehumanization is an inherent part of statism.Anytime dehumanization occurs- especiaslly when systematic- it makes aggression seem more acceptable and could lead to statism.Attacking dehumanization is attacking statism.Any defense of dehumanization is a defense of statism.I think this is a traditional anarchist position.
“I think we might actually be at odds over the meaning of “anarchism” as a result. I don’t consider anarchism to cover every aspect of human life, while it seems like maybe you do.”
I think anarchism covers political,economic,cultural issues and some morality related to those.No it is not an entire worldview but it IS more expansive than libertarians often admit.It has implications all over the place.
" But regardless, are you saying here that slacking off on the job is justified?"
" Debatable.Depends what you mean by slacking."
“Refusing to honor the employee side of an employer-employee agreement.”
How are you defining “refusing”.Remember that in many employment contracts apart from sackable offenses must of what is considered as violating the contract is not defined and is open to broad interpretation by the employer (an exploitive power if ever there was one)
"I think an important issue in this discussion is causality. I suspect our treatments of it are different from one another. But let me ask you, what is your treatment of causality? "
While we clearly disagree on things,I’m not sure why you think we differ on this.
“While I appreciate your response, it doesn’t tell me what your treatment of causality is. Can you please provide that?”
How can I have a different treatment of causality? are you meaning in general or related to a specific cause-effect relationship?
I didn’t say being called an offensive name would stop you getting a job ,I said racism in general keeps people down and that when it’s systematic is when it’s worse.
" So can you explain what you mean by “racism in general keeps people down”
Racism tends to keep people down.the “general” in that sentence was using the everyday meaning of "on average " or something akin to that.
“to keep (someone) down”.
subordinated and oppressed .Treated as inferior /worthless.
“Okay, I appreciate the clarification, but you still haven’t given me your definition of “moral”. Can you please do so?”
An act which leads to human flourishing.
“How can there be harm without rights, in your opinion?”
“Harm is broader than physical harm.You harm a person by treating them badly”
“What you mean is that your definition of “harm” is broader than physical damage.”
I’m using harm in the everyday sense.
" Can you explain how, in your opinion, I harm a person by “treating them badly”
You treat them as a lesser and devalue their humanity.You act devoid of humanity.
" What does “treating (someone) badly” mean to you?"
Any immoral act.
“For example, would you say that people can cause negative emotions in others?”
Can people cause negative emotions in others? yes.of course.I’m not sure what your asking.If you meant to ask do I consider this as treating others badly? then yes at times.Hurting others emotions is covered by virtue ethics and there is no hard and fast rules in defining when it occurs.It’s complicated by a range of factors.
“It’s all well and good IMO to believe that people shouldn’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. However, it’s easier to get away with (in your terminology) violating the rights of scoundrels because fewer people tend to defend them.”
True.What does that have to do with anything.
“Basically, more attention is focused on what you call “rights” vs. what you call “morality” because the former are deemed more important than the latter. That doesn’t mean the latter should be ignored or dismissed, of course.”
Ok.But I’m arguing both are roughly equally important and neither can be removed from a discussion but the distinction must always be made.They both should be discussed to avoid sounding like your arguing for immorality based on rights or arguing that something is moral because there is no right to avoid it (e.g. inequality)
“My point is that I don’t think you should criticize both at the same time, because anarcho-capitalists/non-left-libertarians are hardly the same as statists.”
Recently given comments here and arguments from other anarchists tend me to think otherwise.
“Strictly speaking, it’s logically possible to jump all the way from the Earth to the Moon.”
How is it possible? Gravity prevents it. If gravity changed only then would it be possible. The laws of nature have no baring on autonomy.I’m referring to acting beings.
"Logical possibility has nothing necessarily to do with physical possibility."
*I disagree.*If it’s physically impossible for a man to have a baby then it’s logically impossible and vice versa.
“Anyway, I think the distinction between positive and negative ability is very important in treatments of causality. For example, if I don’t have a million dollars, does that mean you’re keeping me from getting it (assuming we’ve never met nor otherwise interacted)? Does it mean you’re depriving me of that million dollars?”
No.That’s not relevant to what I’m arguing.
Okay, how do you define “status”?
How you feel/are viewed within society.
“Is there necessarily only one way in which one feels/is viewed within society?”
No.However there is a consensus.
“How can the absence of the state be more authoritarian than the presence of the state?”
" It could dictate your life down to the smallest details now granted the state does this massively already.But this would be a voluntary system and one you’d be caught up in.It would BE society itself."
“If it’s a voluntary system, what would be the consequences if you violate its totalitarian dictates?”
social exclusion, ignored, treated as inhumane etc It could and likely would quickly lead to aggression.
“Maybe I need to ask you how you’re defining “authoritarian”?”
I admit this is still a concept I’m fully sketching out.These sorts of things are still concepts I’m clarifying in my mind and have done less thinking on than BrainPolice say.
I’d say an authoritarian relationship is one which involves a hierarchy whereby some are treated as lessers and some are treated as superiors and there is an attempt to limit or even abolish the autonomy of the lessers.
“By that reasoning, any and all property ownership involves an authoritarian relationship between the property owner(s) and the property non-owners.”
To some extent this is true.
" That is, all people seek their own self-interest over others’ self-interest."
I disagree.This is a randian error.
“Of course, these conclusions depend on how you define “lessers” and “superiors” above.”
What groups/individuals are designated lesser and superior depends on the context.
“Doesn’t “the best life possible” imply some sort of objective value theory?”
In ethics yes.However fulfilling life could be used in a minimal sense to mean the best kind of life you possibly have minus artificial restraints.
"First, given the fact of subjective value, "
In economics? That does not say anything in ethics.If you mean in Ethics, I’d like to hear the argument.
“whether one person subscribes to a particular standard of “fulfilling life” does not obligate anyone else to subscribe to that same standard.”
That depends whether you accept universal or relative morality,of course.
“Second, even under such a given standard, it’s an open question IMO whether one can figure out what constitutes the absolutely most fulfilling life possible – for a specific person or for any person.”
I’m not meaning down to every detail but general things which could be considered good for all humans.
“Okay, so you then agree that no one is prima facie entitled to anything in a positive sense. Therefore you don’t consider it morally/ethically justified to violate the rights of someone who’s doing something you don’t like but not violating anyone’s rights himself.”
Not entitled as a right.That’s right.I don’t think morality triumphs rights.
You do know for all Albert Jay Nock’s anarchist and the like, he was pretty much a cultural conservative.
You do know for all Albert Jay Nock’s anarchist and the like, he was pretty much a cultural conservative.
He was a preacher. Proudhon was a Christian democrat in his own way. Whatever works for them.
I am highly suspicious of any ‘libertarian’ who considers the pet preferences of non-violent individuals to be a ‘barrier’ to his vision of society.. It strikes me as a rebirth of Millenialism in a secular, libertarian guise; the inability to mind one’s own business and leave well enough alone. The same spirit that prompted prohibition animates many of these ‘left’ libertarians. Also the existence of ‘racism’ in the West, outside of liberal PC attitudes towards minorities, is grossly exagerrated.
Odd how universalist sentiment is associated with the word “anarchy” isn’t it? It seems as if left wing social signaling moral tropes are too big to argue against.
Give examples of cultural authoritarianism. And if it involves racism/sexism, define it specifically.
Scott, you seemed to agree that there won’t be statist barriers in anarcho-capitalism. So we can discard with statist barriers as a limitation of meritocracy. What’s left is what you call ‘cultural conditions’, namely racism. But we can discard with those as well, because individual discrimination can not have macroeconomic consequences. What that means is if for instance employers don’t like to hire minorities, they would merely drive down the price of minority labor, providing other employers additional incentives to hire minorities. Thus the chance for someone in a minority to get a job is not diminished by the discriminatin of some employers. Thus cultural conditions actually can’t be a barrier. Since we also discarded with cultural conditions as a limitation of meritocracy, I conclude that anarcho-capitalism would be a pure meritocracy.
Yes, I’d like that article please. Because I think it’s wrong. Economic theory tells us that the counterbalancing effects would negate any discrimination pretty much completely. There would have to be some massive conspiracy involving a majority of businessmen. And they would impose a heavy cost upon themselves by not hiring the cheapest labor, they would be completely uncompetitive. And even then you can at least expect women to not be sexist, blacks to hire blacks, etc. and they would hire all that cheap labor and take over the market.