I request a swarm attack on each of these videos with incisive critiques and perhaps an article/video reply.
“Why married men are rapists”.
Clever
fringeelements did a response video if you’re interested.
I remember looking through old threads and seeing one named “An Anarchist Critique of Anarcho-Statism” or something of the sort. The first response was from a user named “Ricky James Moore II”, I don’t know if he still posts here. I’d like to quote his response, as I think it’s a good answer to anarcho communists/syndicalists/chomskyites.
“Whatever, contractarian-propertarian capitalism; call it what you want. I don’t have any desire to hold ‘anarchism’ like some game of ‘King of the Hill’; you want the stupid word, use it, it’s associated with more crackpots and imbeciles than anyone worth a damn. I’ll take Henry Clay Frick over Emma Goldman any day of the week and any time of the day. I’d rather be owned by Rockefeller than live in a ‘commune’ that only recognizes ‘occupancy’ ownership, and I don’t have a damn bit of problem with shooting any such crazies who try to ‘homestead’ my house because I’m an absentee landlord.”
Anarchy comes from the greek meaning no rulers. The concept of a society without rulers was around way before the english word anarchism or the people that “real” communists claim invented anarchism were around. Just because certain people wrote about anti-capitalism and called it anarchism does not mean that capitalists can not be anarchists. The word anarchism has a lot of meaning in modern society and most people see it as chaos. Most people do not even understand it as anarcho capitalism or even anticapitalist “real” communism.
I fail to see how being sexist or racist is not compatible with being an anarchist. He just works off the premise that anarchy is no hierarchy due to the writings of a few individuals. Even though it does not make much sense they still think that is a logical argument against people using the term anarchism in reference to being anti-state.
The main argument is that a type of property is an individuals “means of production”. He goes on to quote godwin by saying that he is referencing wage labour in the argument that men should be able to keeps all the fruits of their labour. I have not read godwin but I do find it interesting that an godwin makes and argument against being an employee and against renting and interest. Why is there no mention of an argument against taxation and not wage labour. These concepts of property also comes from a time when we did not have private land ownership like we have today.
Then he goes on to claim that “real” anarchists do not just criticize the state but criticize even basic hierarchy structures. He then makes the claim that it makes no sense to criticize the state based on a liberty violation but turn a blinds eye to “tyrannical authoritarian institutions relationships that flow through modern society”, this based on the graphics i assume he is referring to private companies and media. He makes the false claim that anarcho capitalism turns a blinds eye to fraud in the private sector. So his argument is that an cap make no sense because they are hypocrites who ignore private sector dominance and only focus on the government. Again the focus on hierarchy in general over a focus on the state. A distorted view of property ownership and labour results in the anti-capitalist mind set.
This whole idea that authoritarian institutions could very well be your local starbucks or local laundromat and not only restricted to the state is in some ways a great way to neutralize resistance against the state. If you can get people to be against a generality or a fiction, you can at least divert their attention from the state as a problem. I find it strange how these “real” anarchists are far more likely to criticize capitalism than they are the state. Surely if they were realy against hierarchy they would be against the state primarily, seeing as the state has the largest hierarchy influence on the population. This is why it makes me think this whole movement is realy a type of counter intelligence against anti-statist philosophy. To try by means of corrupting language, change the meaning of words to another meaning. That way by the time people come across the information they are so confused they just ignore it and carry on going.
If anything anarchism means the freedom of voluntary association. This means that someone is free to be against all types of hierarchy in an anarchist society, if that is what they want to do. Some one is also free to engage in hierarchy if that is what they want to do. Any thing other wise could not claim to be anarchism because that would be a contradiction.
He sounds a bit like a Randian… only a minute in tho…
Ah yes, this guy. I posted a thread on his arguments against the non-aggression principle a few days ago. He seems to spend most of his time attacking An-Caps and especially Stefan Molyneux.
I’ve never understood the viewpoints by leftist anarchists on this issue. By this definition a commune is certainly within the range of a state.
Future VR post here we come.
Establishment anarchists are the new statists. I don’t know to what degree that guy supports my reasoning, but I came to the same conclusion some months ago and have defended it here in other threads.
So-called anarchists trumpet an ideal that proclaims “no rulers”, while pushing a system profoundly dependent on violent morals-enforcement. What are the morals-enforcers if not rulers?
As long as you are stuck in the statutory law mindset, then you will forever identify law with rulers. Common law shares some similarities with statutory law. In both, there is someone declaring what the law will be for everyone. In one it’s the legislature, in the other it’s the judiciary. In my opinion common law is more desirable than statutory law, but it is not ideal. I consider mediation to be the ideal. However, private law does not have to be like common law. Some libertarians on this board seem to associate private law with common law, but it is not necessarily the case.
Either way, law enforcement is not equivalent to a system with rulers.
Forgive me for failing to comprehend the meaning or relevance of your response. I don’t see how it undermines my premise that violent morals-enforcers are rulers regardless of whether they claim a banner labeled statism or anarchism.
I forgive you.
How poetic. Anyway you said:
Now of course we’ve butted heads before so I know you’re far too intelligent to be confused on a matter this painfully simple. Is there a chance you’re using erroneous or anomalous definitions? Like I said, what are violent morals-enforcers if not rulers?
Law enforcement is equivalent to law enforcement. Most law does fall under some sort of ruler/ruled relationship, but not all law. Many libertarians on this board seem to support a variation of common law - that you can sign a piece of paper saying that you agree to whatever the judge rules and you must abide by the decision or else. In this case, I completely agree with you that this is a system of rulers, albeit on a much lesser scale than a statutory system of law.
However, that is not law per se. There are others on this board who talk about judges fulfilling the role of mediator. Instead of ruling in favor of one party or the other, the mediator helps the parties resolve the dispute nonviolently. This doesn’t mean that all disputes will be resolved nonviolently, but then it is outside the scope of law.
Violent relationships cannot be eliminated entirely. The people that want to settle disputes with nonviolence will choose law. Those who prefer violence will not, but then they get exactly what they wanted, a violent resolution. That’s a quick path to becoming an outlaw.
Elaboration is usually appreciated, but I think you’re obfuscating a simple contention. Can you answer my question directly?
What unusual definition of ruler are you invoking whereby a violent morals-enforcer isn’t a ruler?
I’ve already answered your question.
You’ve moved from intellectual dishonesty (obfuscating the issue) to outright dishonesty. You didn’t answer my question directly, you ignored it. I asked you about definitions, not about your opinions regarding the alleged thoughts of others on matters of law. A direct answer will be about the definition of ruler and whether yours conforms to the usually-accepted one, taking into account my charge that a violent morals-enforcer is a ruler in the common sense. Again:
What unusual definition of ruler are you invoking whereby a violent morals-enforcer isn’t a ruler?
What unusual definition of enforce are you using?
Let’s be clear here:
You have also said recently:
You are the person asserting that advocates of private law will rely upon morals enforcers instead of law enforcers. In a very real sense, there isn’t law “enforcement” in private law. Disputes that are settled by violence are settled outside the law in a private law society. So, you have a choice to make:
- You can drop this “morals enforcement” and debate the legal system that advocates of private law actually support, or
- You can continue to obfuscate the issue by claiming falsely that advocates of private law support “morals enforcement”.
If you continue to choose option 2, then it is you who is intellectually dishonest. Advocates of private law support rulerless law, and I have already explained above what kind of law can be had without rulers. You have ignored this, insisting that we talk about morals enforcement. Well, morals enforcement is irrelevant to private law. Do not ascribe to advocates of private law the desire for morals enforcement.
It is intellectually dishonest to attribute “morals enforcement” to anarchy. Under private law, if a dispute is settled with law, then the parties to the dispute have settled the dispute nonviolently without rulers. If the dispute is settled without law, then at least one disputant refuses to settle nonviolently.