I think too often because of the heavy influence the right has on market economics these days that austrian economists sometimes fail to overlook other anarcho-leftism ideologies that are gaining popularity. People here attack socialism and keynesian economics so much that we fail to see the other things that the left are doing at times.
For instance… I think thanks to Hayek and Mises we already have a solid foundation for refuting any theoretical framework for which the people on both the left and the right have for claiming that a planned economy is better than a market economy. But, once you deal a crushing blow to their calculation argument or their community planning argument, they start making other reasons to get rid of capitalism. How would you refute,these things, once you destroy their economic argument?
The idea of living in a commune is more superior than having an individual society
The idea that direct democracy wouldn’t allow the community control of their lives
We need communal property, so, people can get more things
That anarcho-leftism would give the individual more freedom under a capitalist society
I guess what I’m asking is… shouldn’t we spending more time refuting their moral arguments? We’ve already destroyed their economic arguments, and, you’ll see when you debate them that once you expose their falsehoods about economics they start flinching… but they seem to be make a lot of pathos arguments, and, they make a lot of appeals to emotions. We usually only concern ourselves with their economic views… but I think we need to start criticizing their moral arguments as well.
Has this been done before? Is there a work on here that I could look at that would point me in the right direction? I’m interested in knowing about the libertarian critique of their moral arguments. Since they don’t have an economic leg to stand on… all that’s left is their moral argument. And once that’s gone… it’s indefensible.
Good luck. That’s like proving Islam is wrong. Moral sentiments are statements of faith, not of fact. They are impossible to prove, or disprove, as objectively “correct”.
Why exactly? Superior upon what grounds? What defines superior? Think about it like this. If communes are superior to human happiness then a great majority of people will move into communes if many are set up. Those who remain are obviously not satisfied by communes, or are looking for something more in life than happiness (I find contention to be a much more reasonable goal) then all they are doing is pursuing their wants, as are the people in the commune. Similarly the advocates of the commune are simply doing what they want, advocating communal living.
This can simply be refuted by theory. If in direct democracy whatever the majority says goes then obviously it is possible for an intrusion into personal lives. I would also point to modern democracies (although I admit that they are not direct democracies) for support of this and it is especially likely considering that all actions are supposedly for the good of the commune as a whole. Furthermore democracy is simply disgusting, it is mob rule, there is nothing glorious or good about it.
Simply refer to economic arguments, and especially things like the tragedy of the commons.
Huh? I’m sorry that doesn’t even make sense. I think you should have taken more time to clearly phrase these questions because that cake is more appealing when a cake is pie.
However I am inclined to agree with La Rose in principal. You can usually beat people at their own ethical game if you use their own lingo and values but inherently neither is superior (I’m an existentialist, I don’t believe in true “ethical” behavior) and some you literally just cannot convince because their goal is say, the commune, not making those in the commune or the commune itself happy or wealthier.
if the question is whether my dad can beat up your dad today, then so long as their schedules are sufficiently open there is a test we can perform…[:P]
Well, fights are not arguments. But an argument about a fight is. And one that is easily testable.
If debating morality were as definitive as say claiming that one man can beat up another, it would be be pretty much in the bag. Not an eternal question.[;)]
None of these seem to be explicitly ethical arguments.
For the first one you’d have to know what people plan to do to maintain the commune and to eliminate private property. Would these people be willing to use violence against a person if they wish to avoid the expropriation of their property? And if so, given this moral okay to use violence in this manner, how does the commune prevent the man from getting the property back in the same manner? (It’s the thief paradox: deny and asserting ownership rights). Can this moral rule be maintained indefinitely?
I don’t understand what you mean in the second one. Do you mean they are opposed to democratic control?
I think the third one is a strawman. And not exactly clear, either.
The fourth is the least relevant to ethics. I do not know what is meant by anarcho-leftism. It seems to be a blanket concept. Not a moral action.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t that clear with my OP as to what I meant when I talked about moral arguments. Basically, what I’m saying is that when you take away the anarcho-leftists view on economic planning, or, on direct democracy they’ll still make moral arguments for these things, despite while their economic reasons are wrong.
They claim
That ownership should be in the hands of the people. They say that capitalists are evil, and, their means of ownership must be ended so the people can take charge.
Direct Democracy will place more hands in the decision making ability of the people. Some anarcho-leftists will deny that Direct Democracy is totalitarianesque, or, that it will infringe on your personal rights. I’ve found that you need to really press them hard about their views on communal property to get them to admit that it would involve a loss of liberty.
They say that only communal property should exist. They say you can have your own things, but, that other people have a right to the community belongings. Therefore, they aren’t yours. But, they think that it would better if the community had access to everything. Even when you point out to them the flaws in this thinking- they still say that it’s better than private property.
They completely ignore the fact that we don’t have genuine capitalism. And, when you tell them that the real reason for our problems is not capitalism, but lack of it, they’ll just say that the government is bound to capitalism, and that we need to get rid of the government for freedom for the individual. They think that capitalism cannot happen without big government. So, therefore, their ideology must grant the individuals freedom under which the capitalist system would not provide. This is a great argument for anarcho-capitalism but they go the opposite direction… and when you keep pressing them on the fact that it’s not really an individualist society they’re aiming for, but a collectivist one, they eventually give in. But, they just seem to really think that their philosophy would give people more freedom.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t that clear before…These are the kinds of arguments that leftist-anarchists frequently make, at least, when I debate with them once I’ve destroyed their economic arguments. When you expose the fact that their system really isn’t superior to capitalism… they’ll always have other reasons for it.
Capitalists are nothing more than people who fund other people with capital. If you give a starving man a loan that will get him through the year, and by the end of that year he can pay you back, then congratulations, you’ve just become a capitalist. Furthermore remember, the capitalist and the etrepreneur both play important roles in the structure of production, refer to your economic knowledge and talk about how the “non working classes” increase the standard of living for the “working classes”. Finally what part of this process is “evil” in order for the capitalist to be evil, then the act of loaning must be evil and loaning is merely voluntary exchange of one’s property.
Who exactly are “the people” in this case? Why is it prefferable that “the people” take charge? You have already destroyed thier economic debates, now you can say why it is better if the capitalist retains his property and “the people” retain theirs. Finally in a free society “the people” can reclaim their land voluntarily, there is no need for a total destruction of current property definitions
Especially when the commune is seen as the superior and most important thing, I don’t see exactly how it is that the commune can NOT infringe upon the personal lives of its inhabitance. Furthermore remember that democracy has never been, and can never be anything more than glorified mob rule. I have no sympathy for democracy whatsoever.
Simply refer to economic arguments about why this would be less prefferable. If they still disagree then I’m sorry, there’s really not much that you can do because they’ve made communal property thier goal just as a man drinking a glass of water has made the satisfaction of his thirst his goal. The Anarcho Leftist will not be satisfied until there is communal property simply for the sake of communal property. You could try to talk about how people become attatched to what they believe is theirs, but I doubt it will work.
Just remember that all capitalism is, is voluntary exchange. Anything that these people would do once the government was abolished would be an act of the free market. Furthermore just ask them WTF it is that they think buinesses and firms would cease to exist on the free market. Seriously, people still desire goods and services and firms would almost certianly be able to provide them at the cheapest rate. However I do actually think that we would se much more mutualist style organizations if we were on a free market, there would also probably be far more small buisnesses that don’t really dominate the market but compete over a large area.
I reject the very premise of this thread - namely, that there is such thing as “anarcho-leftism”, as this singular nebulous position that is in an absolute duality with “anarcho-capitalism”. What specific position do you actually want to address? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-syndicalism? Post-left anarchism? Mutualism? Geo-anarchism? Roderick Long style Left-Libertarian Market Anarchism? These are all distinct ideas, all of which can vaguely be called “leftist” in some way relative to ancap orthodoxy. “Anarcho-leftism” is just being used as a perjorative through which to lump “everything but ancap” into a vague category that doesn’t do the specific ideas justice. If you’re looking to debunk something without understanding it, you’re not going to get anywhere, other than perhaps an excersize in confirmation bias.
