To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?

[Johnny_Doe]

@kropotkinbeard

Firstly, it’s difficult to say what “all people” will ever decide. It’s probably safe to assume that “all people” won’t always decide the same thing all of the time as well. This is simply a given. It’s also irrelevant. When you say “all the people agreeing on giving some people the power to perform functions…” it should be stressed that this “power” isn’t any form of hierarchical power position. It simply means they have a certain job. If they have unaccountable power then it’s simply not an anarchist/libertarian society. And, of course, it will be what the majority decide if there is going to be any type of freedom at all. AGain, you’re hinting at the myth of “mob rule” which simply doesn’t exist in the real world, with regards to democracy that is.

But is democracy/mob rule hierarchical?

@kropotkinbeard

Nothing at all. But sure others ‘may’ be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t clash with everyone else. If there are a ciruit of non-hierarchical collectives working together, and then someone wishes to introduce some sort of capitalist, hierarchical, anti-liberty, anti-freedom scam, then I’d hope it wouldn’t be okay.

But isnt it possible to voluntary choose a capitalist/hierarchical organization of production, because its more efficient than a flat structure were everyone say something regarding everything, all the time?

@kropotkinbeard

This is the reason for wishing to have a libertarian society in the first place. A libertarian society is NOT simply tossing all rules, organization, laws, etc…out the window in order to create a chaos which would allow the less moral pillagers and plunderers to have a freer reign. May as well go straight back to spavery again. Again, the notion of “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t exist anywhere but on paper. The ONLY types of tyrannies which have ever existed have been tyrannies of the minority.

A majority does actually have the power to enforce a tyranny, as opposed to a minority tyrannizing the majority?

@kropotkinbeard

Firstly, those whom you are saying “provide the ideas/knowhow/machines…” seems to assume that these foilks have some special right regardlss of the fact that they got these thing in the first place by exploitation of others.

Why is aquiring knowledge/having ideas, building machines etc, equal to exploiting others?

@kropotkinbeard

They live under the illusion that they “own” these places simply because they may have built these places using the labor of others

What if they actuall built it?

@kropotkinbeard

, or worse yet, that they’re somehow entitled to having more. Well, that’s just a problem they’ll have to grow out of. There will be no “direction of the former” unless the people decide they wish to have the former folks directing them. I can imagine scenarios in which this may be possible. It’s just that now the people will be in charge from the bottom up rather than top down, as is what naturally happens in capitalism, and which is anti-liberty.

Is it impossible for workers to boycott an employer and produce themselves independently of the employer in a capitalist society(if the workers have the know-how)?

@kropotkinbeard

This is why ALL libertarians (amarchists, socialists, anti-state communists) have always been anti-capitalist, and is why one simply cannot be an “anarchco”-capitalst. Again, this label is an oxymoron which amounts to calling someone a “free-slave”.

Exploitation is firstly where someone has used the labor of another to profit off of.

So cooperation = exploitation?

@kropotkinbeard

Also, it depends on what you mean by “a business arrangement”. I’d hope that there was no such thing as a “business arrangement” even existing. There are people working together to try and make their society as good for as many people as possible.

No people work together to produce necessities, because it`s more efficient than if each individual did everything by themselves.

@kropotkinbeard

The notion of “profitting” won’t have the same depraved meaning it does now. The notion of profit would be something like ‘has X benefitted society’ as a whole. It most definitely would not be ‘has X benefitted me’. Benefitting the whole IS benefitting you. This is just trivially basic and needs no further explanation, does it?

But wtf is beneficial to millions/billions of people?

@kropotkinbeard

As I’ve already said, if the free people freely vote to have a hierarchical relationship whereby they will have no say so in what their labor is being used for, how it’s being used, or anything else, well, it’s logically possible that one would vote themselves into slavery, but highly doubtful.

They`d get paid and would be free to terminate the relationship at any time?

@kropotkinbeard

And the notion that they somehow need someone at the top i.e.a master, is utter nonsense, and sounds like what top business people try and propagate a lot of the time. They are not “needed”.

So it would be better if everyone were involved in the day to day decision making of organizations of production?

@kropotkinbeard

And they most certainly have no right of authority over anyone else, especially those doing the work.

But what if the people doing the work decided it would be more efficient to leave the day to day decision making to someone else?

@kropotkinbeard

But slave owners used the same argument as you’ve introduced here.

Slaves couldn/cant terminate their employment, as opposed to people who volunatarily enter into a cooperation with the intent to produce necesseties.

@kropotkinbeard

However, if by some odd chance that person X does have a special skill from which all others would benefit, it’s possible that the people would allow him to assume a role of ‘responsibility’, but not ‘authority’ in any sense which entails power over people. And he most definitely would not benefit from the position in any way in excess of everyone else involved in the project.

Why shouldn`t people get according to their actual contribution in the project?

@kropotkinbeard

Of course they’re going to have different abilities. This is no way, shape or form necessarily translates to some having more and others less.

But shouldn`t people get according to what they produce/contribute?

@kropotkinbeard

And everyone should do the work which the want to do,

What if they dont want to produce necessities, wont they have to, if they wanna go on living?

@kropotkinbeard

and which collectively everyone decides which they want to have done, how things will be traded, etc…

Won`t that be hierarchical, assuming not everyone collectivly agrees?

@kropotkinbeard

But for the most part nothing you’ve just said contradicts anything I’ve offered. Any time two people are doing two different things there is a division of labor. This isn’t an issue. The issue is to eliminate the possibility, or even need or desire, for some people to profit off of the labor of others in any way which may lead to hierarchical relationship.

But why not laissez-faire capitalism, I understand it`s not compatible with corporatism/collectivism/central planning etc?

@kropotkinbeard

Yes. They usually try and arrange things so as to eliminate anyone from interfering with the monopoly they’d like to have. Your questions seem to still be based from a capitalist economic model, and assumes the “rules” built into that model.

What rules?

@kropotkinbeard

This is why it’s often difficult even conversing with a pro-capitalist person (not that you’ve even claimed to be one). The just take a almost a law of nature that this economic model is THE only model, and then see everything through those lens.

I don`t think voluntary cooperation is a law of nature, just less destructive than copperation based on coercion/force/extortion etc.

@kropotkinbeard

They also assume that those who reject the model just don’t get it because were they to understand,

I believe there are people who actually belive in coercion/force/extortion etc, i.e. I belive they understand voluntarism.

@kropotkinbeard

well, they simply couldn’t refuse. It would be like refusing a law of nature such as gravity or something. Most critiques DO understand, and simply don’t like it, or at least aspects of it, from step one. It’s also not that they can’t see or don’t understand what achievements have been made using this model, just as one could see achievements made under slavery. Still not a good reason for continuing slavery.

But slaves couldnt/cant terminate the “emplyment”.

@kropotkinbeard

If I’ve said “everyone” it is not meant to mean 100%. A simple majority will be fine. So, if there is a vote on what speed limits should be in the neighborhoods, and 51% decide in favor of 30 mph, and the 49% who wanted it to be 300mph lose. That’s too bad for them.

The 49% can bulid there own road?

@kropotkinbeard

They’ll have to act like aduclts and get used to driving slow, or perhaps move to another city of idiots who think that driving through neighborhoods at 300 is okay. And, no, if they stay and are subjected to the law they are NOT being “coerced”, nor having “force” used against them if asked to pay a fine or speed 10 years in prison if the 51% so decide.

What if one is put in jail, if one doesn`t want to buy schooling/healt insurance etc from a certain provider, is it coercion then?

@kropotkinbeard

They’re as free as they were before. What’s really scary is the idea that there would be no law at all and that the idiots could just do whatever they wanted. Sorry, but this would infringe upon my freedom, and I’d be against it.

Isnt that what minarchism is about, i.e. make sure that people dont do whatever they want if it harms others?

@kropotkinbeard

SImilarly, personally I’d be against allowing citizen to have guns as these, too, infringe upon my right to live in peace without the threat of an idiot going on a shooting rampage because his team lost, and he blames “the state” for it, or whatever lunatic reason he has.

Why would anyone blame the state in a anarchist society, and who would ban guns in an anarchy?

@kropotkinbeard

No, not at all a “central planning” state. No country at all has developed with out some sort of state.

So it doesnt mean its impossible to develope without a state?

@kropotkinbeard

This is quite different. Also, libertarians/socialists/anarchists/communists are anti-central planning, as the entire history of libertarianism (socialists, anarchists, communist) shows.

But won`t that which the collective decides be some form of central planning?

@kropotkinbeard

Of course. If they expect to have any sort of freedom in society democratic structures are the only way to have been show to work.

Like the freedom in western societies today?

@kropotkinbeard

The problem with your question is that it pre-supposed that a majority is a tyranny by definition. It’s never been in history that I’m aware of in any democratic societies. This is the part fake libertarians have difficulty with. It demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding what democracy is. In a democracy, even one with one man, one vote i.e.the best kind, exceptions, considerations, and everything else could also be decided on by vote, which already happens even within the countries where democracy even slightly exists. Why? For a very elementary reason. Being that people are going to have different ideas about what’s best, and being that they’re absolutely not going to get their way 100% of the time, and realizing that we may very well be the minority on the next issue, they do NOT crush those who have lost. In fact, quite the opposite. The majority protects the minorities most of the time, and absolutely in a democracy. If they don’t, then it’s simply not a democracy. Therefore, voting is perhaps ‘THE’ best expression a person living within a free society has. Not voting is basically saying you’re willing to be a slave to what others are going to decide, because you can bet that there are others who will decide. I’d simply prefer to be one of the free ones who has participated in exercising my freedom.

But wouldn`t it be better to just allow different solution, instead of 1 centrally planned solution by the majority?

@kropotkinbeard

Oh, and given that there’s not a democracy, most definitely ‘NO’ there is no 51% rule now. Were there to be one the U.S. would probably never go to war, military spending would be way down, spending on healthcare and education and even welfare would be way up, and on and on…All of these things have been prevented precisely by NOT being democratic, and unaccountable private tyrannies have been the primary cause. This is anti-democracy and anti-liberty and freedom.

But won`t democracy/51 % rule always end up in corporatism(rule by special interest groups)?