It’s 100% fact that he spent many many pages in MES trying to convince people of the need to strip unions of their legitimacy, get your facts straight.
After dipping in out of this thread I propose a formal debate between Giles and Brainpolice.They would both mutually agree on a motion with one afirming it and the other criticising it. Have opening statements from each of them, followed by two or three rounds of debate then closing statements. No links are to be used for arguments; everything must be clearly laid out in full. I would also suggest that it be well moderated to keep on topic.
You could create a commentary thread to debate the matters raised.
For the umpteenth time, Rothbard was opposed to the STATE intervention that either propped up unions, or were used by unions as a means to their ends.
No, read MES, especially the part where he spends many pages trying to discredit unions.
Then you’ve just dismissed the entire tradition of 19th century individualist anarchism.
Cooperation and preferance for more cooperative forms of organization is not inconsistant with individualism.
All you are doing is playing semantics to defend your preferance for a word, irrespective of concepts. Furthermore, fascism is not supported by libertarian socialists, so your package-deal use of the term simply fails.
The only person obfuscating here is you, by using blanket terminology.
This is simply an unprovable claim. You’re just stating your preferance for them to cease to exist. The fact of the matter is that in a free market, if there is a demand for worker bargaining power, there will be some unions. There is nothing in a libertarian society that you can do to stop others from voluntarily associating into unions and cooperatives. Your blanket statements fly in the face of the pluralism implied by a consistant voluntaryism.
Again, for the umpteenth time, we are not discussing the economic viability of unions, but whether or not they are legitimate constructs in a free market, which they certainly are.
Like you and Brainpolice, we are now arguing past each other. I honestly believe that you and BP hold the exact some principles, with different cultural/economic preferences(which are entirely irrelevant), and both of you are just arguing against positions that neither of you hold.
Nonsense. His actual political philosophy is conservatism, not libertarianism. This isn’t a mere matter of preferances. It’s a matter of the meaning and implications of basic libertarian concepts. Me and him don’t even agree on what constitutes consent and coercion and what constitutes justice and injustice. I have not argued against any position that he does not hold (his own statements are out in the open for you to see them), I have presented libertarian arguments against his attempts to defend a conservative political philosophy and demonize actual radical libertarians as mere commies.
As a person looking from the outside in, I’d have to disagree. He says feudalism, and you think illegitimate property and coercion, but he thinks something akin to an apartment complex or a hotel resort, where he owns the entire property(legitimately), while renting out parcels of his land(rooms) to tenents who must abide by this conservative “law” You might disagree if this is economically viable, or in anyway preferable in a free society…but that’s just your preferences coming in to play. You would not want to live in a place like this, but I could forsee people “demanding” this sort of community(Giles being one of them).
I do not believe this idea in any way conflicts with libertarianism, and I do not believe I have misrepresented Giles in any way(although, correct me if I’m wrong).
I second the proposal.
Et tu?
And likewise there will be cartelization of industry then. You assume that the demand for worker bargaining power is greater than worker competition, and the ability of that collective bargaining power to do anything more than chase capital investment and entrepreneurship away, without the coercive power of the state behind it.
And there is nothing in a libertarian society that can stop businesses from firing every union employee and hiring people who want to work. For that matter, even requiring it’s employees to sign an agreement not to collectively organize.t).
Not at all. They are just your arguments, made from the opposite direction. They highlight your hypocrisy.
And this is the fact of the matter.
I’m certainly willing to do it.
:stands on the street corner: EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT
:begins scalping tickets:
But seriously, yes, I would also be a viewer of this debate.
Good.
It’s just not viable. Of course, the left are notorious for their ignorance of economics, so it’s easy to understand how you may let your imagination run wild to create this picture.
I’m actually quite glad the “libertarian left” has decided to use the word socialism. Not only does it reveal their intentions but it allows me to call them what they are: socialists.
As I’ve said, I’m certainly willing to do it. Perhaps a topic in the “Fight Club” group may serve the purpose nicely, as it won’t be as problematic as it would be doing it in the main forum. Although, as was suggested if anybody really wanted to create in topic in here also discussing it, it would be more than welcome. Once we hear from BP, if somebody could PM me it would be nice. Then we need to find somebody who is willing to create the original post and define the rules/ structure.
No, not good. That is to ignore and write off a huge chunk of the historical basis for the libertarian movement simply because you don’t like the word “socialism”. Kissing Spooner and Tucker goodbye isn’t “good”.
Sure it is. Just not for you.
It’d be nice of you made rational arguments instead of rhetorical blanket statements.
If you’d stop making blanket statements and poo-pooing, and step back and actually try to compregend people’s positions, you’d realize that you’re misrepresenting people. I have not once identified myself as a socialist here, or taken any explicitly socialist positions, I’ve merely consistantly defended the existance and compatability of anti-state socialism. Left-libertarians are not inconsistant with market anarchism. Most of us are squarely within the tradition of market anarchism and individualist anarchism. To simply dismiss us as “just like any other socialist”, to lump us in the same category as Stalinists, is to simply misrepresent people. So stop misrepresenting left-libertarians to suite your personal agenda. Half of your statements like this are simply rude and over the top, it’s just bad rhetoric meant to intimidate people while you ignore the content of their ideas and misrepresent them.
Dude, live in the now. Such conservatism!
The point was that the original statement, claiming that an individualist anarchist cannot be a socialist, is simply false if one actually knows about the history of individualist anarchism. Hence, in effect, the claim ignores the reality of the relationship between ideas.
We can still borrows ideas from them, just as we borrow ideas from people who have nothing to do with libertarianism or the “libertarian movement” (goodness, I hate that term).
Wonderful analysis Brainpolice. I’ll be sure to borrow that argument next time I encounter a statist claiming anarchism isn’t viable.
The “left” tend to be far weaker on economics. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe were all conservative in the cultural sense and were in favour in what would likely to be called the “right libertarian” position on economics, in fact, almost all of the fellows at LvMI would be considered right libertarian, at least in regard to their economics.