AJ,
That article is excellent, its more or less my own view of a more voluntaryist society. Competitive legal systems, will have differing systems of property which will inevitably have different ideas of what constitutes “aggression.” It isn’t (foolishly) trying to merge pluralism with universalism.
That’s how I see this. Property rights are a principle explaining what factually is, and I see no way around property involved in economics. The variations are in the theories based on property rights. Some are logical extensions of, some not, and some argued over whether or not the consistencies are fully hashed out. And thus how the science, ie. knowledge, of ethics, ie. an individual relating with other individuals, is understood. Do people morally degenerate in relation to scarcity or morally generate? Questions not necessarily to be answered with a final conclusion, but observed as such events play-out as billions of individuals relate with each other on this earth, at least that’s what I’m doing, watching this play-out in real-time.
That is a good point. I do think that only applies within the context of currently established system. Since the thread is about leftists, they are the people who would disagree, and thus object to your ownership of capital, or really anything you don’t “need”. They disagree with your definition of property, and your definition or property is what would have to be enforce via violence (until its establishment as the status quo).
Meh, it’s the best system we have. First-come-first-serve is how ownership is basically come across. You are the first to have control over yourself because your brain has control over your body.
edit - to the person that said voluntarists think all voluntary things are ethical: that might be so but I personally haven’t met anyone like that. Most of them simply say that you shouldn’t use violence to break voluntary arrangements. It doesn’t cover ALL of ethics/morality, only part of it - it simply says when violence is justified(when it should not be punished). It’s justified in defending innocent people(“innocent” meaning people who have not first violated the NAP).
Please keep in mind that the NAP is open to interpretation.
I don’t see how it’s open to interpretation. Then again, I haven’t read much about it, just heard it explained.
You can’t use force against someone that hasn’t first done so to you or used force to take or use someone’s property(including your own) without the consent of the owner. “Owner” here means someone that came upon owning something by homesteading it or can trace their ownership back to some original owner who homesteaded it and that was traded through voluntary exchange.
Force, aggression, coercion. All interpretable.
The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action.
Hm, intersting notion. Sounds a lot like a union of egoists.
Yeah, minus the members eventual realisation that they don’t want to hold more than they need junk.
?
Otherwise their independence will be destroyed.
I don’t understand what this means in the context of our posts. All I typed was that the voluntary society described in my last post seemed similar to the union of egoists described by Stirner.
And your right, except Stirner said more (them not wanting more than they need) than one would really draw from the voluntary society description you provided.
Damn, you cats are having a titanic Frazier-Ali battle over 3(?) threads!
I’ve decided to allow your thread to live. [:P]
The ideas from the lefty tribes are the basis for the state threatening our property.
"Once the state is annihilated the Union of Egoists will prevail. This union is not sacred nor a spiritual power above man’s power. It is created by men. In this union men will be held together by mutual advantage, through common “use” of one another. In joining the union an individual increases his own individual power. Each person will now through his own might control what he can. It does not imply though that there will be a region of universal rapacity and perpetual slaughter, nor does it mean the wielding of power over others. Each man will defend his own uniqueness. Once he has attained self-realization of true egoism he does not want to rule over others or hold more possessions than he needs because this would destroy his independence" -
Andrew Carlson, Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents,
Yeah, I don’t entirely agree with this part, but I think it was really more conjecture or “wishful thinking” on Stirner’s part. I’m sure there are plenty of people who value lots of cars, or slaves, to their own, unbridled freedom.
But without a centralized power to lord over us with, who would listen?
Heretic! Looks like I’m slowly winning this war. [;)]
I’m going to look into this Carlson fellow though.
LOL, I can only be considered heretic if there exists an “Ideology of Egoism” to compare myself against. Fortunately, there isn’t. Unless you convince me that your normative conclusions are facts, the war will continue unabated.