I’ve read some articles by Cohen. Even if one doesn’t agree with him, he is a good writer and a clear thinker. Regarding the book Danny mentioned, one should read it but also look up Eric Mack’s detailed response to it, as well as (and I shudder to say this) Palmer’s.
Ditto.
No.
No, anarcho-capitalism is a purely left-wing philosophy.
Nathyn, do you really want me to spell out for you my whole conception of the political spectrum? Because on my 2D spectrum, you will not see one axis dedicated to social freedom and another to economic freedom.
Hmm.
I’m just going to o ahead and post here the note I wrote to myself on Facebook on December 7th.
(Note: if you’re not Nathyn, you need not bother read the rest of this post.)
"This is a brief note. I plan to work on this idea more, perhaps even writing an essay on the matter. This is not a debate.
"The most-used 2D spectrum has flaws. It ignores subtle nuances. It fails to take into account the most important struggle, that between non-aggession libertarian ethics and the acceptance of coercion. Instead, it separates this important struggle into two categories (economic and personal liberty), thus creating a false dichotomy!
"I propose a 2D spectrum wherein the horizontal axis represents ethics and the virtical axis represents autonomy.
"On the far left one will find ethical libertarianism. Everyone here advocates adherence to the non-aggression axiom. Voluntaryist anarcho-capitalists never force anarcho-communists to engage in trade, deal with money, or own stuff, and only ever use force as self-defense. Voluntaryist anarcho-communists never force anarcho-capitalists to join unions, deal in labour notes, or to give up their justly-acquired property, and only ever use force as self-defense.
"On the far right one will find ethical nihilism. Everyone here advocates adherence to the idea that might makes no wrong. People use whatever means they feel useful to enact whatever control they desire, including murder, rape, theft, slavery, battery, et cetera.
"On the far top one will find individualism. On the far bottom one will find collectivism.
"As such, anarcho-capitalists are located on the top/left portion of the spectrum, anarcho-communists (at least those of whom are actually dedicated to voluntaryism) on the bottom/left, fascists and Stalinists on the bottom/right, and nihilists on the top/right.
"I’ll map this out in more detail someday. For now, it’ll stay in my head.
"(If a third axis is to be added, it might differentiate natural law with utilitarianism. Although that may lead to some difficulties since the two are not mutually exclusive.)
“This spectrum/idea is Copyright © 2007 Alex Peak.”
Where do I propose this?
Which is why I decided to come up with a different spectrum, one which does not presume individualism to be better than collectivism or vice versa, one which acknowledges the possible existence of nihilists and of voluntaryist communists, and one which does not presume that those found in the corners hold ideologies which consist of combinations of ideologies held by those in adjacent corners–in short, one that everybody can live with. Is it perfect? No spectrum can be, but it hits upon everything which would be essential for me.
Nathyn, freedom is an ends. It has no place on the political spectrum, which ought to be about means. Hence why I designed a spectrum which fully focuses on means, including non-aggressive individualism, non-aggressive collectivism, aggressive individualism, aggressive collectivism, and literally everything in-between. Therefore, we don’t have to fight about “freedom,” just the means of getting there.
I reject that statism or aggression will, as means, yeild the ends of freedom.