I’m not sure how to answer this.
As a 1st person observer I think I’m able to observe clear distinctions between voluntariness and coerciveness.
At the introspective level I personally experience voluntariness and coerciveness as distinctive things.
Does that answer your question?
Hello vive!
Your observations on 1) are correct. The term libertarian has always been associated with socialist/communist/anarchists. What I find interesting is how few folks claiming the label “Libertarian” for themselves have even the most elementary knowledge of the history of where the term came from, that it was from its very inception anti-capitalist, as it is, and that the notion of “anarcho”-capitalism is simply nonsense. One would think that given the amount of admiration many have of Rothbard that they would at least be aware that he himself said that one cannot be an anarchist and a capitalist. (One of the few correct assertions he made about anarchism. He was quite ignorant of anarchist thought as far as I can tell, and from most everything I’ve seen. Oh, and this goes for Mises as well). Much of this confusion has been cleared up at ‘Anarchist Writers’ ‘What would an anarchist society look like’. The author does a fine job of outlining the history which is usually, virtually never in fact, considered before throwing these concepts around. This is why you can end up with odd oxymoronic deviations such as “anarcho”-capitalist, a non-existent category, and some see nothing odd about it. I mean, those with even a minimal understanding see how odd it is, but then again I have yet to meet almost anyone claiming to be an “anarcho”-capitalist who knows anything about anarchism. But they sure know (or pretend to) their Mises, Rothbard and Hayek.
Regarding 2), I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you referring the the “Libertarian” here in the correct sense which you’ve recognized in 1) i.e. the actual libertarians of the anarchist/socialist/communist type, and the “purging fake libertarians” as those calling themselves “libertarian”, but thinking it is compatible with capitalism? Just need clarification. And if this is the case, what are you recommending if not purging the fakes?
Thanks!
Hi Buzz!
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with several things here, though I’ll stick to the last assertion regarding “anarcho”-capitalism. I’ve been a student of anarchism for probably over 30 years now, and I’m of the opinion that there is no such category as “anarcho”-capitalism, nor has there ever been, nor can there be, unless, of course, we simply decide to change the meanings and definitions of terms. Historically, anarchism has always been anti-capitalist. This is not even an issue as far as I’ve been able to determine. I’ve seen nothing in anything I’ve ever read on anarchism which even hints that capitalism is compatible. But if you have any mateirals which may enlighten me to this, and when the change occurred, I’d be most interested in reading it.
Also, since I’m here, and since you seem to at least believe there to be such a category as “ancap”, not that you are one yourself, perhaps you might be able to tell me how one can be anti-hierarchical and authoritarian structures and be a capitalist at the same time? How can capitalism be made to create equality, as anarchism requires? I have many more questions not unique, and very basic, but these will do for now.
Thanks!
It’s only nonsense given certain definitions. Use different definitions and it’s no longer nonsense. No one’s obligated to use certain definitions for words like “libertarian” or “anarchist” - not by history or by anything else. All you’re saying, then, is that you don’t like how some people use those words. That’s your problem, not theirs.
Answer depends on how “libertarian” is defined and what is meant by “anarcho-capitalism”.
“Here: http://youtu.be/BRb9bw08Wy0?t=8m6s”
So you believe a sardonic remark about the inconsistency of minarchists infers that Walter Block actually believes that 80-90% of “liberatarians” are minarchists?
There’s a trend among libertarians to see minarchists as not consistently upholding NAP.
Also, some AnCaps have a deriding attitude how that’s like as if theft cannot be ok on mondays but wrong on tuesdays and so on, “because according to all statists theft is wrong for somone- the public, but ok for others- state employees enforcing taxation”.
But who really upholds NAP consistently? How many people think NAP should be practiced in lifeboat situations? That would mean that people who think that in some situations NAP should not be upheld in lifeboat situations are also inconsistant and pragmatist and without principles like the statists are, and Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, and all other libertarians who say that NAP should not be applied in lifeboat situations could too be mocked as “okaying theft on mondays, but not on tuesdays”, or even worse “okaying murder on mondays, but not on tuesdays”.
Also, if some NAPist differantiate between civilized life and lifeboat situations, why some NAPists couldn’t differentient between tha value of life and property? The first group of NAPists says that NAP doesn’t apply in lifeboat situations, so leaving some situations completely without the obligation to uphold ethical principles that are to be upheld in other situations;
why couldn’t the second group of NAPists argue that there should be a gradation, eg. that breaking NAP in regards to life is worse then breaking NAP in regards to property, and that therefore that taxation, although it is in itselft a violation of NAP, is justifiable in order to have a state for the purpose of perserving NAP in regards of life.
To me, that sort of differatition- in order to preserve the principle in regard to situation 1 (life) which is regarded as more important, a limited breach of principle is allowed in situation 2 (property) - is less incosistent then saying that NAP should be uphelp in situation 1 (civilized life) but it is ok for it to be totally discarded in situation 2 (lifeboat situations).
Also, if one were to accept two views- firstly- that interventions are consistent with NAP, and secondly- that the Georgist theory is the correct definition of property, he would be totally consistent in supporting both libertarianism / NAP and a state which imploys taxation.
“But who really upholds NAP consistently? How many people think NAP should be practiced in lifeboat situations? That would mean that people who think that in some situations NAP should not be upheld in lifeboat situations are also inconsistant and pragmatist and without principles like the statists are, and Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, and all other libertarians who say that NAP should not be applied in lifeboat situations could too be mocked as “okaying theft on mondays, but not on tuesdays”, or even worse “okaying murder on mondays, but not on tuesdays”.”
I will answer your questions in order:
Libertarians
All libertarians
Rothbard and to my knowledge Block both agree that NAP should be applied in lifeboat situations.
“Of course, many formulations, such as Rothbard’s and Block’s, avoid this objection by either specifying that the NAP only applies to a civilized context (and not ‘lifeboat situations’) or that it applies only to legal rights (as opposed to general morality.)”
https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression#Consequentialist_criticism
i just started reading this thread and i knew that mises wasnt anarchist, but can anyone point me to a good reading by mises concerning his views on state intervention and how he justifies it?
All want more liberty (we’d rather be able to fly than just walk, ie inherited feet, invented shoes, crutches, wheel, plane)
We employ means to get more liberty (totalitarianism, anarchism, physical and mental exercise, eat, buy, sell, vote)
I think much of the failure in society’s attaining liberty is their thinking that the ends require a different means. In many respects, it makes sense that a different means would be applied.
If my end-goal is to have more leisure, then my means must be more work, which is in apparent opposition to my ends-goal. People think that in order to attain greater liberty, they need to do the opposite, give away liberty, in order to attain the end, liberty. Work for leisure, statism for liberty.
Explain to someone a society of anarcho-capitalism and they’ll love such a place. But they’ll not believe that such a place can exist without the ‘real world, brutal work of statism’.
What they fail to realize is that, when you exchange your leisure for work you can easily reclaim your leisure because it isn’t given to a third-party. But when you hand over your liberty to a third-party in order to attain more liberty, that third-party cannot be trusted to give it back.
When your leisure is exchanged within yourself for work it is still within you and you can easily re-exchange it because your self-interest is top priority. When liberty is handed over to a third-party, you lose possession, therefore reclaiming it will usually require you to take extraordinary measures and usually at a high cost.
It must be made clear to people that the world you would like is the world it would take.
a more succinct summary
When your leisure is exchanged within yourself for work in order to attain more leisure, it is still within you and you can easily re-exchange it because you never transferred ownership to a third-party. When liberty is handed over to a third-party, there is a transfer of ownership. Even if that transfer is said to be contractual and implicitly or explicitly temporary, you lose possession, and 9/10ths of the ‘law’ is possession. Reclaiming it may require you to take extraordinary measures and usually at an extremely high cost.
Why? Because no one except maybe your family and small circle of loved ones (and that’s highly suspect under difficult circumstances) prioritizes your interests as highly as you do. If you don’t hold it, you don’t own it. So if there is something that you highly value, such as your liberty, I’d suggest you not transfer ownership, especially to someone that claims to have your best interest at heart. We know that’s a lie, now don’t we?
As I said, if we change the definition of the word “anarchism” then we can call it anything. So, why not call it “dog”? After all, dogs are “anti-state”, too. (I’ve heard, which, of course, alone doesn’t make one an anarchist at all) If one is going to use the term “anarchist” how it was originally used, and for the reasons it was originally used, then, no, one cannot, or at least should not, change the definition to include something as brazenly contrary to its original meaning. This is what the the term “meaning” means. This would be little different than were I to decide to start using the term “bachelor” for “married men” as well. Well, yes, I ‘can’ do this, but, firstly, why would I. Secondly, given that both terms “bachelor” and “married man” already have definitions, as does anarchist, why change it? Thirdly, even if I were to change it, why would I change it to entail the exact opposite of what the original term was based? It’s at this point where someone may wish to offer the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, but this would itself be a fallacy as there IS a definition of anarchism, as well as certain tenets and principles which would qualify someone as an anarchist. Being a proponent of capitalism is most defintily not one of them, nor has it ever been.
To use your logic then were I to decide to star referring to all married men as bachelors, and someone disagreed with my use of the term, then that’s just their problem. I hardly think this is my problem. I’m not a lingustic relativist. Words have meanings, usually. Anarchism is, by defintion, anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian structures. Period. This is an integral part of the defintion of the word. Capitalism doesn’t fit. A more appropriate term should be concocted instead of hijacking a term with it’s opposite.
kropotkinbeard,
Do you use the word “gay” to mean “happy” or “homosexual”?
Words have meaning based on context. If someone uses a word to mean a particular idea, then it would be nonsense to frame what that person is saying with a different definition. But if you know what definition he is using, even if it is a nonstandard definition, then there is no problem. Successful communication occurred, however silly it may be.
Uhh…I for one respect the “opinions” of Noam Chomsky. And in order to know whether or not one believes they agree or disagree with someone or something it’s usually a good idea to know something about it to begin with. Firstly, your comment “A man who subscribes to anarcho-synicalism…” isn’t an argument. It infers both that you know what “it” is, as well as that this is what Chomsky is. However, I’ve seen no evidence to support this. Secondly, this goes for the term “socialism” as well. And I’m afraid it is you, not Chomsky, who has the defintions and terms backward.
A word of advice; When attempting to take on Chomsky it would behoove you to be well prepared. This is why about 99.9999% of his critics fall short. I’ve been studying the anti-Chomskyites for many years now, and if there is one constant it’s that they do not know Chomsky at all. This is usually quite easy to demonstrate as well. And while I’m all for someone challenging Chomsky, as he himself would encourage, it’s first necessary, at least if one wishes to be honest, to know what his ‘actual’ positions are first so as to be able to critique them. This is trivially basic. It’s just amazing how few people do. And this even includes folks who have written mounds on him. (See David Horowitz, Oliver Kamm, etc…) This is the way it usually looks:
Chomsky: My position is X,Y,Z
anti-Chomsky: Chomsky believes A,B,C
Me: Uhhh…No, Chomsky’s position is not A,B,C. It’s X,Y,Z
anti-Chomsky: He’s your idol! You agree with everything he says! You worship Chomsky! (ad infinitum)
Me: Huh? I simply said that Chomsky’s position is X,Y,Z, as is indictated in every book he’s ever written, and in everything he’s ever said, publicly anyway…
anti-Chomsky: Chomsky believes A,B,C!
It pretty much goes on like this for a while. Then I ask the “detractor” to provide evidence to support their assertions, which, of course, would mean actually referring to Chomsky’s materials, and this simply doesn’t happen. It would mean actually reading them, and, well, if you know anti-Chomskyites you’d know that this borders on spiritual treason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer?s=t
Usage note
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16thcentury by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that itwas made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use,maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
The term “gay” used to mean happy. Over time it began to be used to mean homosexual. However, when it became to be used to indicate homosexuality it did not assume the opposite of the term gay i.e.hate. But to use your logic, again, we could simply refer to “anarcho”-capitalists as “cheese”, and it doesn’t matter as long as one understands my use of the term “cheese”. And if they don’t understand my use, then, well, that’s just their problem.
Sorry, but I simply believe that words, or at least most words, have actual meanings and defintions, and that they should be used appropriately, and for specific reasons. That the term “anarchist” has been hijacked is a non-issue in my opinion. Non-issue in that it has happened (at least by some). One need only briefly look at any number of places on this very website. The more interesting issue is why folks would use it, and what the purpose is of their using it. Is it simply because the anti-government aspect of anarchism appeals to them? This alone is not nearly enough to be able to claim the title. Most ‘actual’ anarchists would be spinning in their graves were they to see how the term is being used now i.e.as the virtual opposite of that which intended. Again, if one wished to begin referring to those who consider themselves “pacifist” as “Nazi”, well, I have a feeling that the pacifists wouldn’t look upon this very highly, nor just sit back and accept the new term, casually proclaiming that it’s just a term, and terms change over time. I mean, I doubt they would.
Another reason that it’s not a good idea to bastardize the meanings of terms is that, as we can see now at places like Stefan Molyneux’s ‘freedomainradio’, there are entire generations of young folks listening to his “ideas”, who think of him and themseleves as “anarchist”, and therefore internalize notions which are very much at odds with what anarchism has always been. It’s basically anti-educational. They aren’t what they think they are. Needless to say that there are few, actually, none that I’ve met on his site, that have read any anarchist writings at all. Well, I believe this to be a serious problem on several levels. One is that they’re simply ignorant of the history of what they’re talking about. Secondly, they’re referring to themselves and their positions inaccurately, and often fight to maintain their newly found status among like-minded “anarchists”, which aren’t anarchists at all. Thirdly, they end up making claims which they believe are “anarchist”, but which aren’t at all, and are often the opposite. There are more reasons, but that’s enough for now.
yes
This is supposed to be a “more succinct summary” of what?
I never said that it did. I am merely pointing out that words do not have a fixed meaning. Their meanings are based on what people think they mean. I am also pointing out that it doesn’t make sense to insert your own definition into what someone else is saying. You would no longer know what that person is attempting to communicate.
I never said that it was their problem if they don’t understand you. As far as I’m concerned, it’s your problem. You are the one attempting to communicate an idea, and other people are not understanding what you want to communicate. That’s not their problem. It’s yours.
You can use words to mean whatever you want them to mean. No one is stopping you. But if you use nonstandard definitions, then the onus is on you to clarify what your definition is.
I accept your apology. It is a shame that you are under the impression that words have objective meanings. Words do not have truth values. It can be true that someone uses a word in a particular way. It can be false that someone uses a word in a particular way. But the sound itself has no inherent meaning.
I prefer it when words keep their meaning, more or less. It makes things less confusing. I think it is silly to redefine most words to mean whatever one wants them to mean. But sometimes there is an advantage to redefining certain words. Anarchist may have been used by communists originally, but the etymology of anarchy is “without ruler”. Libertarian anarchists trying to change the meaning of anarchy to what the parts of the word means is a good thing, in my opinion.
No, they are exactly what they think they are. Words represent concepts. They know what they are conceptually. They use a word to represent that concept, and you would prefer if they used a different word. But they still know what they are. And so long as other people know what they mean by it, then other people know what they are.
No, they are referring to their positions completely accurately. They are in fact anarchists. That you prefer a different meaning doesn’t change what they are. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.