Ah, so cops defend life liberty and property ? That’s news isn’t it ? Last time I checked the state and its cops are by far the biggest destructors of property righs. Consider for instance how many people are jailed because of smoking pot. Then tell me who does the jailing ? My limited understanding tells me it’s cops who gladly shoot their fellows when their fellows disobey the tyrannical dictates of the state - but maybe I got something wrong…
Apple’s ‘designs’ are protected by IP laws. That’s a state granted privilege. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, Apple and others stole various ideas for GUIs and such from Xerox. Finally, Apple was near bankruptcy more than once and was bailed out by…Microsoft! Oh well.
Xerox’s failure to protect their intellectual property is Xerox’s problem. And last I checked Microsoft wasn’t part of the government so they can bail out Apple all they want. And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their ‘designs’, as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
FYI - those who oppose IP (myself included) aren’t just opposing IP laws, or the words “patent” and “copyright”. We really do oppose the very idea of intellectual property, i.e., property in ideas.
I don’t want to turn this into an IP debate. I just wanted to point out that your intended reductio ad absurdum is precisely the position that many on this site advocate. If you are going to reject this position as “immoral and coercive” and put it on a level with statism, you had better back it up with some logic (but not in this thread, please).
I’m only pointing out that Apple are not always original creators and that they are not that good at bussiness either. As to IP, I don’t think you can protect it if in order to do so you need to violate rights to physical property.
Topic on intellectual property rights.
I didn’t say that cops “defend life liberty and property”; I only meant to suggest that stabbing a police officer who writes you up might not be the best way to advance the cause of liberty.
But that is just my opinion.
I agree entirely.
It makes no sense to add the word “capitalism”, to have an anarcho + an adjective, if we are talking consistant voluntaryism. “Capitalism” would only be one optional add-on, not what defines it. Anarcho-capitalism does not equal voluntaryism in any absolute sense. It is only one form of it.
No. If you respect others rights as individuals, you’re an anarchist, plain and simple. Whether or not you’re a “capitalist” is entirely irrelevant to that.
I prefer to call myself a market anarchist - which is a broader movement than anarcho-capitalism. I despise the term anarcho-capitalism because (1) it confuses the hell out of people (2) it’s a red flag to a bull and a self-contradictary term with respect to most anarchists and (3) the word capitalism itself has been rendered into an anti-concept or package deal term.
The problem with your view here is that you’re acting as if anarcho-capitalism has a rightful monopoly on anarchism. In effect, you’re proclaiming that only anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, that all consistant voluntaryists are anarcho-capitalists.
It really depends on what one means by the term heirarchy. In a certain sense, I do think that heirarchy is natural, and in another sense I think it is a bad thing. I do think that absolute egalitarianism does contradict human nature because quite obviously diversity and equality contradict eachother and human beings are rather diverse. But that doesn’t stop me from mutually respecting some egalitarians who are voluntaryists and it doesn’t stop me from desiring to see egalitarian tendencies increased.
The problem is that we don’t current have a free market. Non-free markets are not equally justified as free markets. They are distorted.
No, it was in the main anarchist message board on myspace actually.
The question is circular.
This issue bugs the hell out of me. It seems so simple, any political movements which follow the NAP, ZAP, are voluntarist, truly anarchist etc should be able to get along. But somehow they don’t. For example, one of my good friends from the far left calls himself a market socialist and is basically the same as an ancap. I showed him some Rothbard and he digs it and thinks we can be allies. On the other hand some of his anarcho communist pals from the far left went to see a lecture by David D. Friedman and brought a pie and… threw the pie in his face when he was speaking. No joke! Someone who theoretically should be allies with any anarchist gets a pie thrown in his face by people who should be his fellow anarchists in revolution. Its things like that that can make you suspect humanity in general are just too stupid, unprincipled and cowardly to ever be truly free. I still have some hope left though. Maybe the vulgar libertarians and the reverse (vulgar far left anarchists? I dont know what we should call them) can be convinced of their errors. Imagine how powerful a true anarchy without adjectives movement could be!
In my experience, market anarchists tend to be far more tolerant of other schools of anarchism than most anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists are. Some of the socialist types claim to be all about anarchism without adjectives, yet they essentially exclude market anarchism. Although it seems to me that the consensus at this board is also a bit too intolerant of more socialistic anarchist traditions. And I have a similar friend who is a mutualist who is also a fan of Rothbard and doesn’t quarrel with market anarchists.
Brainpolice, 99.99% of anarchists aren’t in favor of non-aggression. You can play word games all you want, but the correct, modern term for individuals in favor of non-aggression is “anarcho-capitalist”.
Are you certain that anarchists don’t favor non-aggression? 99.99%?
No, “anarcho-capitalist” is not a term that describes voluntaryism as a whole. I’m not playing word games - you are the one making this semantic by insisting that “anarcho-capitalism” is the only term that can possibly describe a pro-liberty philosophy. “Anarcho-capitalism” is a relatively new term and the ideas of voluntaryism precede it by well over a century. “Anarcho-capitalism” is not the only faction that supports voluntaryism.
To proclaim that only “anarcho-capitalists” support voluntary interpersonal relations is to take a snobby and irrationally elitist attitude and be ignorant of the history of anarchism. It is downright ridiculous to ignore the bulk of the history of anarchism, dub oneself an “anarcho-capitalist” and then go on to proclaim that only “anarcho-capitalism” is truly anarchism. That’s simply silly and makes you no better than the anarcho-communists who try to claim a monopoly on anarchism.
Furthermore, I’m not convinced that all self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalists” are truly consistant with the NAP when it boils down to their actual policy positions and outlook towards politics. Some make glaring acceptions that makes them function as minarchists or even conservatives. Some are even closet monarchists. I won’t name any names.
Anarcho-anything can be consistant with the non-aggression principle so long as the adjective attached to the anarcho is truly persued in a voluntary content. The labels and preferances are entirely irrelevant. What matters is that people persue such matters through free association, and the concept of free association was not invented a mere few decades ago by Murray Rothbard. That’s the entire point of this thread, and apparently it doesn’t register with you.
99.99% of statistics are not nessesarily true; the statement that "…the correct “modern” terms for individuals in favor of non-aggression is “anarcho-capitalist” " is also not nessarily true. Those who do not consider themselves anarcho-capitalist can indeed be in favor of non-aggression.
“…The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including natural law, utilitarianism, contractarianism, egoism, and Objectivism. Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. However, some espouse the principle as a simple matter of personal preference.”
Albiet, that is an excerpt from wikipedia, but it does not make it hard for one to imagine that just maybe, those who do not label themselves anarcho-capitalist, or even do not call themselves such, can believe in the NAP. I’d be willing to bet there is a bunch of individuals who fall under the following list, who believe in the NAP:
Agorism
Anarcho-capitalism
Autarchism
Christian libertarianism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Individualist anarchism
Left-libertarianism
Libertarian feminism
Free-market anarchism
Minarchism
Neolibertarianism
Paleolibertarianism
Progressive libertarianism
Propertarianism
Right-libertarianism
Rights libertarianism
Voluntaryism
Obviously, some of these can be objected to, but that won’t prevent someone who, depending on their knowledge, may consider themselves socialists to some extent, yet believe in the NAP, or at least respect it.
Simply claiming “99.9%” of anarchists aren’t in favor of this, or aren’t in favor of that, and then going on to say that a certain term is correct & modern, when the one who is claiming so themselve said previously that meanings of labels & terms change in a post a while ago, in a different thread, I think, doesn’t make sense to me : \
Anarcho-capitalism =/= anarchism without adjectives. Anarchism without adjectives is the plural result of adhering to voluntary principles. It is a broader spectrum. Anarcho-capitalism is contained within it.
What’s your point?
Did I ever challenge the non-aggression of past anarchists? Nope. That’s because I’m talking about the present! Your constant use of past, historic definitions to try to defend supporters of modern, current definitions is misleading at best, evil at worst.
As I posted in another thread: