The entire internet is anarcho-capitalist, not anarcho-socialist. That guy is a fool.
So you think to replace the word state by society makes for an anarchy? Even Wikipedia, which is sure not known to be pro libertarian, will help you find out that anarchia means no state.
Socialst anarchists are an oxymoron.
Some coercion is necessary for society; it is therefore not necessarily bad; it all depends on who does it and what they do it for.
Seriously, why do anarcho-communists even bother distinguishing themselves from statists anyway?
He is also a coward; for some reason, he feels no need to go beyond his safe little blog & on to here to argue his position. The up & down voting in Reddit seems to perfectly suite his elitist attitude.
It’s seems there are a select few on that sub-reddit (some including the handful of mods, ironically) that are more interested in making a clubhouse than a productive atmosphere of discussion. It was a hoot when some grumbled over their anarchistic flavor not being fully represented in the sub-reddit logo of a simple black flag.
He’s an uber troll. Jeffrey linked to him on the Mises blog last week.
dbzero argues based off of irrational premises and creates all sorts of strawmen. I’d just ignore him, he’s not worth 5 seconds of your time.
Aside from my headache, I have no clue how to respond to this that won’t result into an eventual ad-hom fest.
As a side note, Jimbo Wales (founder of Wikipedia) is an objectivish libertarian.
The word ‘coercion’ is almost irrelevant here. LIbertarians also advocate coercion, you just have different standards.
Anarcho-socialism is much readier to use violence because they typically realise that no one wants to be part of their retarded scheme. That’s why socialism became statist in the first place.
Advocate what “coercion”? Defensive?
Defense, like all issues of scale and proportionality, are very questionable concepts. The very notion of coercion has no meaning outside of a preconception of justice.
Questionable, why?
The major objection is that there is no possibility of meaningful, objective statements about ethical norms. Questionable further because those who promote the idea of natural law/rights typically have specious definitions of what ‘coercion’ is, quite frequently verging on the tautological. As a matter of fact justice is a historical and amoral conflict resolution system, the alleged connection to morality seems to be largely imaginary and (when moral notions do inform ‘justice’) to the detriment of actual conflict resolution.
I do not see how it’s “meaningless” (i.e. not meaningful.) How is it “meaningless”? What if I consider the objection to be “meaningless”?
Because value as a distinct relation between an individual and his end (satisfaction) are an inescapable consequence of methodological individualism. The statement that someone ought to have a value other than what they have or, to put it another way, that there are ‘reasons’ aside from practical reasons, is literal nonsense. Its a misuse of the word ‘ought’.
I really do not see how that is anything but a pure assertion. It’s problematic if one cannot provide reasons. Meaningless though? That much has not been demonstrated.
Because, as I have tried to explain, value = expected capacity to achieve what I want. There is no meaning whatsoever to extra-personal values. Its nonsense by definition.
Right, but whoever said what preferences you hold are some unalterable given? This only makes sense if one assumes some static view of values.
Not at all. People’s values can change, but it is nonsense to say they ‘ought’ to change unless one can give a practical reason for the attainment of their own aims.
And ‘happiness’ does not have some automatic pride of place. Survival, independence, self-image etc are all values people can logically choose over happiness or other values. The problem with ‘morality’ is if there is a reason to choose right vs. wrong it is unnecessary, if there is no reason it is irrelevant.
For a host of other reasons, I view morality as nothing but a sort of a part of your brain which has no specific instructions and bears no relation to any such thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil’, because the latter do not and could not exist. Only individuals have values, and ends are beyond rational examination.
OK, so that rules out categorical imperatives. Again: and?
Perhaps this will help explain why natural rights don’t work, even from Murray’s logic: There is no such thing as ‘human nature’. Conscious actors may vary greatly (in the same way that the Vampires did from us). ‘Humankind’, ‘humanity’ and ‘man in the abstract’ are classifications that serve our convenience in conversation but only exist within our mind. The means which will bring satisfaction to any teleologic entity depend on that entities composition, and all human beings are existentially and biologically unique. There is no ‘human nature’ one can appeal to, no raison d’être to purposive behaviour. The question of appropriate means is an empirical question, as is the question of what means will actually lead to satisfaction. Objectivity in morality is a category mistake, a misunderstanding of teleology which rests on a myopically collectivist view of what it means to be a conscious, purposeful being.