Why Hate the Anarcho-Left?

[Laughing_Man]

I ran into Callahan on Murphy’s blog. He wasn’t very nice. It was strange because he said I just believe what is feed to me by LvMi and Lew Rockwell…yet he is a faculty member of LvMi and a columnist at Lew Rockwell. It was like some strange Hegalian anti-thesis moment.

[Angurse]

@Laughing Man

I ran into Callahan on Murphy’s blog. He wasn’t very nice. It was strange because he said I just believe what is feed to me by LvMi and Lew Rockwell…yet he is a faculty member of LvMi and a columnist at Lew Rockwell. It was like some strange Hegalian anti-thesis moment.

He pretty much left both years ago though.

[Laughing_Man]

@Angurse

He pretty much left both years ago though.

Ah now what happened makes more sense.

[Jon_Irenicus]

You can fault them for sloppy semantics.

Or a fixation with semantics.

[Hairnet]

@Jackson LaRose

@Hairnet

It may be possible that the mutualist conception of property rights is superior economically/sociologically to traditional property rights.

Right! So let’s bring down the state, and let the market settle the score, once and for all!

This is where the pluralists get it wrong. The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market, a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm. A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace. A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.

[Hairnet]

@Brainpolice

And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression. Similarly, at least as a tendency among “thin” libertarians, anyone that promotes values above and beyond non-aggression is often accused of advocating coercion, when of course this could very well be a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the distinction between notions of political justice and more general ethics.

This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before). In short, practically every political ideology says that it’s against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that’s taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called “non-anarchist”, which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.

A few things.

1. I am an AnCap, I do not defend notions of rights, freedoms, or the absurdly dishonest rhetoric of so called “Voluntaryists”. There are just different meta-legal systems. I understand that there are MANY different ways of defining property. I think it is worth while to look into all of them theoretically in order to understand them.

2. I suggest you go to infoshop.com, and read the Anarchist FAQ. From what I have read, while there are many interesting criticisms of the capitalist system, these people have absolutely no interest in making allowances for your system or mine. Do you think these people would respect different cultures notions of property rights?

If an Left-Anarchist (Anarcho-Communism, not that benjamin tucker stuff) nation arose, and was at least somewhat successful, do you think that they would respect non anarchist societies ideas about how property was defined? Or would they cry “exploitation” and liberate us all?

3. I don’t think different meta-legal systems can co-exist in the same geographical region. I don’t how to solve this problem.

[In_Restraint_of_Stat]

@nirgrahamUK

@Merlin

Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy.

anarchists struggle for credibility. most people that don’t reject anarchy out of hand, need to understand economics sufficiently to comprehend that anarchy would bring prosperity. ‘anarcho’-‘communists’ greatly undermine this.

agreed. Not to mention most anarcho-communists I see making posts online are actually in favor of using force/violence against people that engage in “consenting capitalist acts” as Walter Block would put it. They believe in using violence to break voluntary arrangements.

Now if there are anarcho-communists that DON’T support using violence in such situations and truly believe that anarcho-capitalism simply won’t work but that people should be free to conduct voluntary interactions, then sure I don’t have any problem at all with those people. The way I see it, anarcho-communism is subsumed within anarcho-capitalism because people as individuals are free to get to gether and form a commune if they really want to. I don’t think it’d be the most efficient choice for them to do things that way, but they’d be free to do so as long as they’re not forcing anyone to be in it. And maybe the voluntary nature of the way they do things would make it more efficient than it would be if it weren’t voluntary.

[Amanojack]

@Brainpolice

In short, practically every political ideology says that it’s against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist.

Indeed, but I think history may be closing that chapter in libertarianism. The almost superstitious reification of words and phrases like NAP, justice, and rights is no different in principle than socialists’ treatment of words like capitalism. It’s just a definitions game that leads nowhere.

Although I think I will disagree with many of your views, Brainpolice, I do hope you will spend more time here. Clarity will surely reveal that not much substantive disagreement remains after everyone’s thorough self-investigation. As Jackson is saying, the important thing is being against the State.

Let’s rise above mere words for a change.

[Amanojack]

@Hairnet

The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market, a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm. A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace. A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.

Can you elaborate this argument beyond prima facie plausibility? The bolded part in particular does not seem self-evident. Different legal systems have existed within the same territory in the past, according to this essay for example.

[scineram]

They are anarchists, for one.

Second, they are leftists.

[apehead]

@Angurse

We objectively define where property rights come from."

Where?

[apehead]

@Jon Irenicus

Or a fixation with semantics.

Well, if we wish co communicate rather than confuse, It seems quite important to be on the same page.

[apehead]

@Hairnet

This is where the pluralists get it wrong. The market can not settle what is outside the context of the market,

I mean the “market or human interaction”, not just the market in its economic sense. Why would this be outside the realm of the market?

@Hairnet

a loose allegory is science trying to prove or disprove that a is a. It is outside its realm.

How do you define science? Empirical observation validating hypothesis? If this is so, than science is the only tool to validate anything. Otherwise, it is just your imagination whether something is true or not. Although I contend your assertion, even if I conceded the point, science is capable of changing your understanding of “A”, as to make the original equation obsolete.

@Hairnet

A market exists because of a understanding of property by the populace.

I would argue that the market exists because many realize that cooperation is a more efficient, easier means to attain their ends than conflict.

@Hairnet

A market may be able to provide for competing methods and administrators of justice, but it can not provide for alternate systems of justice in the same geographical region, as it would be undercutting its own nature.

This only applies if you take your a priori assumption a sentence earlier as a given.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

If this is so, than science is the only tool to validate anything.

is empirical observation going to be able to validate or falsify your assertion that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything’?

[apehead]

Well, it doesn’t make sense to me how you can observe something non-empirically

[nirgrahamUK]

if as you now say, empirical observation is not going to be able to validate or falsify your assertion that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validateanything’? then supposing it be true that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything’ and also taking into account your counter-example that empirical observation is not a tool we are able to use to validate your statement that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything’ , where does that leave us?

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

if as you now say, empirical observation is not going to be able to validate or falsify your assertion that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validateanything’?

Define validate or falsify

.

@nirgrahamUK

then supposing it be true that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything’ and also taking into account your counter-example that empirical observation is not a tool we are able to use to validate your statement that ‘empirical observation is the only tool to validate anything’ , where does that leave us?

We are left with you razzing me for catching me speaking in absolutes. Touche. What I should’ve said was:

As I understand it, all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation. The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori, unless you artificially define the terms. Also, it seems to me that it would be impossible to know anything, without experiencing something first.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori,

@Jackson LaRose

all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation.

and is this judgement a posteriori or an impossible apriori?

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

@Jackson LaRose

The existence of knowledge seems impossible a priori,

@Jackson LaRose

all a posteriori judgements are based on empirical observation.

and is this judgement a posteriori or an impossible apriori?

This is judgement a posteriori based on my understanding and beliefs on the nature of consciousness.

[nirgrahamUK]

forgive me for not attaching too great an import to your insights on that basis.