Hey do you know how to PM on this site? I wanted to PM you something
There isn’t any way to disallow voluntary anarcho-syndicalism in a free market. I don’t really think Chomsky is an anarchist though. He seems to advocate increases in the size and scope of government on a regular basis.
Cause they are mostly idiots. That Tremblay guy and the likes.
Who? Those who reject self-ownership? And he’s quite hilarious, I still don’t believe he’s serious.
I don’t know. I was thinking the question of law might not be economic. Yet human action being axiomatic I was thinking of this:
Since each individual human in their action is deliberate and purposeful, then an individual defending him or her self is deliberately defending him or her self. That is self-evident. But the question of law might be an effort to answer: Is the human deliberately resisting, meaning, would the human act in another way if coercion wasn’t being initiated against such an individual? Now it may be that we can’t say if the individual would do something else, because their action at the moment is self-defense. Yet this entails understanding a different social relation between the attacker and defender, which is that the encounter is not economic, but rather ethical. Ethics are based on human action, because that’s all that is being described - the actions of the humans, but it’s not an economic but rather ethical situation.
No, I reject too. The antihierarchtarians, the worst kind of antiproperty bozos. I think he means it.
I don’t see why you cannot categorise action, so yeah.
Oh, yeah I fully agree there, no problem with hierarchy myself. And I think your right, I just have trouble believing it.
awesome.
great.
thanks.
I guess to finish that up, then you are agreeing, maybe, that initiated coercion isn’t an economic event, though, human action is still involved and the understanding of the event is defined in the category: ethics.
I think you’re assuming there needs to be some central authority to decide. There doesn’t. “Provoked” means having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest. It’s pretty straight forward. I seriously think you’re just trying to save face for making a ridiculous argument.
That’s actually a very insightful comment.
Poor assumption, poor refutation.
And that - “having some action done that puts the person in danger or being threatened verbally in earnest” - isn’t even close to the standard definition of provokedwhat provoked means. So you are either trying to prove me point, or I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
There aren’t any physical properties to words such as “coercion,” “aggression,” “force,” etc, in social sciences, so when used they are only defined in the meaning people place. Which is SUBJECTIVE.
the problem i have always found with the anarcho left…
is that i have yet to find a leftist anarchist who is willing to agree with me that the state is the problem. i have yet to see a leftist anarchist favor freedom instead of the statist intervention in all matters besides gays/sex, drugs, religion and abortion. most of these types also believe that we must crush liberty and the rights of others in order to create a more ‘free’ society. such as wealth redistribution, labor law, any manner of economic infringements on trade, commerce, etc… abolition of religion in order for them to be ‘free from religion.’ they also have a confused analysis of rights. right to healthcare, ‘free housing,’ etc.
For your claim to make any sense, it would mean that people don’t communicate using language. Language is “intersubjective” meaning words mean what people say they mean but they have a network effect, becoming more useful when one meaning is assigned by more than one person. Because people understand each other…
And I shouldn’t have used the word “provoke” but rather “threaten”
Certain words that people communicate with necessarily entail particular values or attitudes, there isn’t any objective physical properties that can make the definition “concrete.” One person may call a gun a “tool” another may say its a “weapon” said descriptions describe nothing physical they just reveal attitudes. The dictionary cannot fix this issue.
You’re sort of right, but if you take concrete-bound reductionism to its logical conclusion, you end up renouncing most of our language. The problem is that the assumption of the very criteria of explicit object-reference for meaning is mistaken to begin with. What we really have is a plurality of context-sensitive language games. See late Wittgenstein.
I think I get what you’re saying…but “weapon” is just a subset of “tool,” meaning it’s a specific kind of tool. I’d also say that most physical objects can be used as weapons.
Agreed. Although, i don’t know who Wittgenstein is, lol.
You’re kind of getting it, any proposition referring to moral/economic/political theory is ultimately defined in terms of human beliefs.
“If we define an object in terms of a person’s attitude toward it, it follows, of course, that the definition of the object implies a statement about the attitude of the person toward the thing. When we say that a person possesses food or money, or that he utters a word, we imply that he knows that the first can be eaten, that the second can be used to buy something with, and that the third can be understood ….”
- Hayek