I don’t know who thought that: the difference being “legal systems”. Anarchy simply means no rulers.
What is a ruler? It is at the minimum, a legal monopoly. Where law flows in one direction between two parties.
I agree that the difference is between competing legal systems.
I’m not sure I follow.
I don’t think so. The self described panarchists/moral ‘subjectivists’ seem to believe that panarchy means justice is ‘subjective’ - which in practice means that terms such as justice/injustice are meaningless.
They are still bound to respect the property rights of ‘third parties’. So is that really ‘panarchy’ ?
Your comment on slavery was nonsense and this reply is wholly irrelevant. You have nothing but moral relativism. And you are not even consistent with that. Here :
Argue against people having their own systems of natural rights, no. Argue against the notion that natural rights must objectively apply to everyone, yes. This is perfectly in line with panarchy. I have even posted a thread in support of natural rights in the subjective sense. You say “argue against” as if it meant “aggress against” rather than just critiquing someone’s logic.
Yes, when there’s nothing to come back to. While you’re at it, you might post links of such examples for everyone’s benefit.
I define a ruler, in this context, as somebody that arbitrary initiates physical aggression. If I get to a point in which I don’t know and don’t find any worthwhile answers that are logical, then to me these are opinions, ie. arbitrary decisions. I will not base actions of self-defense on an opinion. It’s also why even though I see many injustices in the world I don’t go around trying to resolve them with force either. Now if somebody attacks my property that’s when I know that I’m being moral in my self-defense. Will others disagree with me due to why the conflict may have arisen, such as I live in a neighborhood of animal rightist and they see me pet my dog wrong and want to make me pay resolution. What can I say? I disagree with them, and they came after me. If I disagree with others, I think it would be difficult for me to come after them. I wait for what I know is an appropiate, timely response.
I’d rather wait as long as I can than fire a shot.
I meant it’s about the natural right of liberty again, which some panarchist find abhorent to talk about, but the resolution comes back to apply if there is or is not liberty in a situation each and every time when it comes to issues of justice.
true. That’s what I mean. I meant what you or I would call injustice or justice and then be motivated to do something about it, some panarchists find the need to simply say, “So what? because in panarchy what somebody thinks is injustice or justice doesn’t matter as they all can live together in panarchy.”
It devolves into the land of no-clarity and so it’s hard for me to try to put it the way I’ve seen some panarchists describe it.
I don’t know. But you make my point that even under communism the issue still boils down to property rights (liberty/natural rights).
obviously you don’t understand what liberty means which is your continual problem.
You’re stuck in your own little making.
thankfully i don’t need to as you agree, “Yes”.
^^ Perfect example of a line of discussion not worth coming back to.
Yes. That’s what I too was getting at. It seems as if panarchists don’t understand their own theory though.
Market competition in the production of, say, shoes presupposes property rights. Market competition in the production of security presupposes a consistent definition of ‘security’ - which in turn leads to a consistent definition of property rights.
Not all panarchists are the same.
I don’t see how panarchists don’t meet this.
We were both talking about justice and somehow liberty got included. I’m not sure they are the same thing. Drawing parallels between them might not be very congruent.
There may, there may not be. Good cause is subjective.
See, this is bringing in NR and assigning it the value of liberty. NR = liberty, liberty = NR. We’re starting to get off the topic of panarchy, and move back to objective anarchy (for lack of a better term). In panarchy, people could be down with NR or not. It wouldn’t matter wrt panarchy itself. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me at all.
I agree with this. What is important (life itself, to be protected) is determined individually, not collectively or objectively.
I think I, AJ, Zefreak and Lilburne in particular have been charged with this, but I don’t think it’s correct. We’re value free, in the sense that we don’t impose our values on others, not that we lack values or don’t desire to value things. Every person acts purposefully, even if their purpose is to be neutral, then they value neutrality more than partisanship. When I claim to be a praxeologist, I mean that I acknowledge that everyone acts with rational purpose, and judge my relations and ends accordingly. Thus if someone disagrees with me, they see things differently, not that they are irrational. Even if someone acts in a self-contradicting manner, they are still acting purposefully, for some reason, they value being contradictory higher than being consistent.
This isn’t subjective or relative (as Juan may claim), as much as axiomatic.
I just want everyone to get along, and let’s all be creative and explore all there is to explore. I get annoyed with people who want to control the creativity and energy of others, but I am trying to focus on negativity less (by being an adult about utopianism) and focus more on what is in front of us that we can reasonably effect in our short and fragile lives.
I’m sorry you feel that way Juan.
If all I have is moral relativism, that is substantially better than claiming a false morality. But YMMV (more relativism for you).
What is inconsistent with my claim that something is either right or wrong? I believe in objective reality, but I think it is understood the is-ought gap has not been crossed. You’ll note, I also claim “the case isn’t clear to me yet”, which is consistent with my position on epistemology. I can’t know, what I do not know. When I know, I will know what is right and wrong.
Thanks. I lol’d.
I would call that an aggressor, but I don’t think an aggressor is necessarily a ruler. A ruler is someone who can coerce you with aggression or (loosely) the threat of aggression. Someone who just punches you or breaks into your shed isn’t necessarily trying to rule you.
AJ makes a good point that words are very limiting when it comes to communicating. We end up spending a lot of time trying to argue ideas through words, and all the differentiations of meaning each person applies to each word.
I’m happy we’re able to discuss peaceably right now, but I’ve seen you be this dismissive to AJ many times, and I have never noticed him treat you in such a condescending manner. If you really think so little of him and/or his opinions so much, why bother to engage? It seems counter-productive to the goal of moving towards understanding.
I don’t know how else to convey to you, despite your distrust of people who don’t see things as you do, that we’re not amoral and evil. That it is possible to discuss theory and ideas without imposing moral judgments on them or projecting your moral judgments on others. That moral judgments while natural and prevalent, aren’t the foundation of all discourse.
And in many cases, the promotion of moral judgments in an absolute manner (see our friend Juan) just lead to being isolated and turning people off. You don’t have to compromise what you believe, I think many of us “subjective ethicists” have been pretty respectful about your choice to your own morality. That’s consistent with “our” view. But objective perspectives always seem much harder and less forgiving, and in my opinion, often end up running contradictorily to the goal of peace and progress.
I like you. I accept you. I don’t want to beef with you. If we can get along, we will both be better off. If we cannot get along, we will both be better off to get some distance and avoid conflict. But I really want to give the former a chance. [:)]
LOL. I don’t ‘feel’ that you speak nonsense. It is a fact that your positions are nonsense.
What false morality would that be eh ? Are you saying that the moral positions behind libertarianism are false ? I take it you finally admit to not being a libertarian. Good.
By the way, how can anything be true or false in your epistemologically nonsensical world in which nothing is really good bad black white or whatever?
Are you playing dumb ? Abortion is either right or wrong that’s what you said. You didn’t add “but that’s my irrelevant personal opinion cause I’m a confused moral nihilist”. So, which is it ?
New and Improved! Yay! (and I’m selling this nice bridge too).
Thanks. Panarchy is statism after all and it’s clearly spelled there.
Imposition by consent ? Voluntary slavery ? War is peace ? Panarchy is nonsense ?
LOL WUT ???
Good. That’s why libertarianism means nothing, means anything, means everything or maybe it all depends on what the meaning of is is.
Hmm…
But here’s the important part
I think Rozeff understands that socialized anything (like medicare) can only work by forcing everybody to pay. People who want medicare don’t want voluntary medicare, they want a system in which they DON’T foot the bills.
In this case panarchy is presented as a ‘pragmatic’ solution to avoid bigger conflicts but even as a practical and unprincipled patch panarchy is nonsense cause it ignores basic facts about government.
Just ? What the hell does ‘just’ mean ? You are not telling me that panarchy entails a conception of ‘justice’ ?
I don’t see what I said was so condensing. AJ is misleading as his post showed. He doesn’t understand what liberty means if he thinks an ‘objectivist’ or ‘subjectivist’ or anybody that adheres to negative liberty will violate his liberty. It’s a contradiction on his part, and that’s why I think it’s his continual problem. I said he’s stuck in his little making, meaning, he’s putting up 'walls that divide" us that are not there to begin with. I said “little” because in this big universe it’s his little (I’m little too) making (doing) that is putting up “walls that divide” us. And he couldn’t answer this post I sent him which proves my point on how he doesn’t know how to dialogue.
lol
those that doesn’t recognize natural rights (which include justice) don’t meet this
they are not the same thing, ok.
But I never said what the cause was.
When there is a good cause it is a good cause. I’m not talking about when it is not a good cause.
I never said anything about “objective”. So that’s getting off topic.
You said, “What is important… determined individually”. An objectivist or subjectivist or mother-goose all say this. On principle, it doesn’t matter if somebody calls themself a subjectivist or objectivist or mother-goose. This is all getting off-topic.
That’s impossible. You talk about other people all the time. Everybody does. And calling it an opinion doesn’t change the fact that the “talk” is about somebody else and it’s not about you. Everybody labels everybody and the world. Call a tree a tree and it has now been labeled with a name you value.
ok. that’s common sense.
yes
ok