Johnny Doe replied on 07-07-2012 12:46 PM
kropotkinbeard:
“Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?”Sure, it’s possible that one would choose to become a slave, though probably not willingly. ANd were they to it would most definitely NOT have anything to do with libertarianism/socialism/anarchism/communism other than being it’s opposite. I’m well aware of the efforts of some to try and make slavery, in all its forms i.e.chattel, wage, etc..to seem reasonable, natural, etc…It simply isn’t if one is a libertarian, nor has it ever been deemed to be. One canNOT choose most of the things you’ve listed in any sense related to freedom.
“Enslaved by nature(one is forced by nature to acquire food and eat etc) or enslaved by other people in a society were government only protects peoples negative rights?”
Again, anyone claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist(at least the anti-state communists) are against any and all enslavement. Ideally, there would be no need or use for “government” per se, but rather mutually agreed upon, democratic that is, by definition, chosen group of people to perform whatever functions the free and democratically-minded people decided they do. Regarding rights, there is no such thing, other than what people decide for there to be. There’s most definitely not anything like “natural rights” in my opinion.
Again, libertarian/socialism/anarchism/communism are against all hierarchical relationships as they infringe upon freedom and liberty.
“Having the freedom/liberty to choose a hierarchical relationships, or not, is a freedom/liberty to choose?”
As I said before, yes, a person could choose to be someone else’s slave, though I doubt it would really be freely, though it is logically possible. My argument is that were one claiming to be a libertarian/anarchist…would simply not be in favor of such relationships, and anyone who would support them simply is not a libertarian/anarchist. Therefore, if someone is a propertarian, pro-capitalist, exploiter of other people’s labor, then they cannot be a libertarian. They can call themselves whatever they wish, say, penguins, but they are not penguins any more than they are libertarians.
This is precisely why one cannot now or ever be a capitalist and a libertarian. Actual libertarians have been writing about this since at least the mid-1800’s. It wasn’t till the around the 1970’s when the term “libertarian” began to be hijacked by the right-wing freemarketeers who thought it would simply make their goals of “freeing up society” for pillage and plunder easier.Regarding government intervention, well, while I’m no big fan of “the state”, the only reason capitalism has existed as long as it has is precisely due to the state.
“Not laissez-faire capitalism, but government controlled “capitalism”?”
All other types of capitalism have never gotten past the Somalia stage. But this is irrelevant to the fact that laissez-faire would also have hierarchical, anti-democratic, anti-liberty, anti-freedom structures. But if you can show me how capitalism would not 1)need to use other people’s labor to profit off of, 2)lead to hierarchical relations, 3)lead away from equality 4)exploit the environment simply because it was profitable to do so, which it is now, and would be much worse with fewer regulations (the reason that regulations came into existence in the first place), and there are many more things, but we can start here.
There have been no societies which have developed in any way outside the use of the state. None. Zero.
“Tribal societies = the state?”
Two different things. Also, the notion of “the state” depends on what you mean by it when you say it. Same goes for what you’re thinking when you say ‘tribal society’. Depends on how it’s organized. If the tribal society is democratic, it’s good. If it’s not, it’s not. Same goes with “the state”. If we call a body of free people, elected by free people, doing whatever the free people have decided that they do, well, then “the state” would be a great thing. If it’s an unaccountable body of people, self-elected, who are not acountable to the people, and are endlessly influenced by wealth and privilege i.e.private tyrannies, as most all tyrannies have been, then it’s a bad thing. In a good scenario where there is freedom and democracy, which, by definition there must be in a democracy or it simply isn’t a democracy, the us(the people), them(the government) is sinply an illusion, or false dichotomy.
And, yes, places like Somalia are good examples of places which have tried.
“People in Somalia have seriously tried to abolish the state/a central government, as an experiment to see how anarchism would be like?”
Not quite. They have never developed in large part because they’ve never had a state to help in it’s development. They aren’t anarchist in any sense other than the sense of chaos and anarchy. An anarchist/libertarian system is in no way, shape, or form against organization, development, or anything else. And they’re sure not for an every man for himself social Darwinist monkey-poop slinging scenario where there are simply people running around trying to “capitalize” off everything. Again, anarchists are against pillage, plunder, and the tyranny of the minority i.e.the only type which has ever existed.
Also, the entire notion of “the state” should be looked at a little closer. In a free and democratic society i.e.the only kind which libertarian/anarchism could exist, where all people are free, were there are no hierarchical relationships, etc…there would be no “state” if by state we mean an unaccountable group of people making decisions without democratic participation. If there are this sort of a group, it’s simply not democracy. The us (the people) versus them (the state) is simply a false dichotomy in any free society. If the free people, freely choose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions, well, that’s that.
“The folks who deal with certain societal functions, will only have the authority to deal with certain societal functions on behalf of only the ones who freely chose to have some folks deal with certain societal functions on their behalf, but not other people like in a majority rule, where the majority gets to choose on behalf of the minority?”
Okay, you’ve introduced the myth of the “tyranny of the majority”. It doesn’t exist anywhere but on paper. You have the first part correct, but dropped the ball at your misunderstanding of democracy and how it works. If 51% vote, which is THE ONLY freedom one should every expect to have if living with anyone else, then of course the majority should rule. And, please spare me any pseudo-arguments about “What if 51% decided to reinstitute slavery?” Yes, they could. But in the real world it simply doesn’t happen, and doesn’t happen for very trivial reasons. In fact, democracies do the opposite, also for very trivial reasons. In addition, they most often protect minorities, and for the simple reason that as democratically-minded people who understand freedom, they may themselves be the minority on the next issue. This is Democracy 101, and is why most minorities are and always have been attracted to democracy rather than tyranny i.e.anti-democracy. You don’t have to tell me who fights for minority rights, as I’m fully well aware. Certain concepts which oddly enough seem to be alien to many from the phony-libertarian religion seem to have never understood what basic concepts as “compromise” mean. Also, many seem to have some vague and childish notion that they’re going to somehow have their way 100% of the time when they’re not. Both of these things together seem to demostrate a developmental difficulty which most folks usually pass through by early elementary school. Probably didn’t help many people to have vile people like Ayn Rand attempting to wee out normal human sentiments.