Why you cannot debate with so called 'libertarian socialists'

[Autolykos]

@Birthday Pony

Didn’t rely on tired tropes, eh? Let’s take a look at your first post to me on this forum:

“Basically, the semantic conflict breaks down to this question: are individuals in control of, and therefore responsible for (in a value-free sense), their actions? From what I see, anarcho-capitalists answer this question in the affirmative and socialist anarchists answer it in the negative.”

That seems like an assertion with some non-neutral definitions, despite your insistence later that despite semantic differences, socialist anarchists are denying reality…

… So, calling them like I see them is a bad thing now? Or maybe you’d like to explain yourself further?

@Birthday Pony

“With all due respect, your dispute with the word “capitalist” is apparently due to an abhorrence at the notion that it could be used as a label for anyone who you approve of.”

That was from your first post. Apparently you haven’t liked my attitude since I started posting here and have assumed that my concerns are “purely aesthetic” since day one.

I jumped into that thread on page 3. By that time, IIRC, you had already gotten an attitude yourself with others here. I still see your concern about “capitalism” vs. “socialism” as purely aesthetic, yes.

@Birthday Pony

But let’s take a look at my first response to you:

“By the way, I never thought you were a troll and welcome you back to the Forums whenever you’d like. If there are certain folks who are uninterested in discussing things with you, then just don’t discuss things with them.”

Your point? So you never thought I was a troll. That’s nice. I appreciate that. What else are you expecting me to say here?

@Birthday Pony

Here’s my response to your assertion that I simply don’t like the word capitalism being used to describe people I agree with:

“We could very well say that Kropotkin, Tucker, and Proudhon were all capitalists that said they opposed something they called “capitalism,” but would that do any good in really clearing up what they actually believed or said to oppose?”

And your response:

“I think you’re finding it difficult to hold to the definition of “capitalism” as “voluntary trade”, because you’re so used to defining it differently.”

That’s right. The wording of your arguments betrayed your failure to hold to a definition of “capitalism” that’s different from the one that you like to hold to. I was simply pointing that out. If you don’t like that, well, too bad.

@Birthday Pony

Despite my insistence in that thread that the definitions provided were a strictly practical concern, you immediately projected your take on to it, no matter how many times I said that wasn’t what I was doing. Despite me even saying, “Hey, well, whatever, let’s accept that definition, what does that mean in regard to my question?” you kept driving home your arguments about language and how you perceived me to be too emotionally conencted to words. So I figured, hell, might as well have a debate about language if their not going to answer my questions.

You claimed to be fine with using an alternative definition of “capitalism”, but then you went along and re-presented the argument you made from before you made that claim. That is called equivocation, however implicit. I will give it no quarter. I don’t care whose poor little feelings get hurt in the process.

---

In the end, I fail to see where I used any “tired tropes” in that post.

[Fool_on_the_Hill]

I do sometimes see Chomsky say stuff like 'it’s not even debatable" or “which is something that is not even questioned by serious people”. Sometimes after saying something that isn’t even true.

I’d be interested in seeing examples of this.

There was a time during the Vietnam war when he thought that it was beneath him to use rational arguments, because he thought that the war was too evil to talk about.

Do you have a link to where he said this?

Given that he made some rather vulgar claims, overestimating North Vietnamese and even sending them a letter saying how proud he was of them.

Link?

I’m not very familiar with Vietnam-era Chomsky, so you may well be right. I’d just like to see these claims substantiated.

[caulds989]

I’ll just come right out and say this now: I am an ancap. That being said, I think autolycos is being entirely unfair to birthday pony. I think birthday pony has not shown any disrepect to ancaps, on this thread at least (I was not part of the others you all are referring to), besides his rather humorous “tired reply to a tired reply”. I think autolycos (again, I am only privy to this thread) has shown much more “attitude” and defensive platitudes than birthday pony has; you know i’m not biased because I probably share more theoretical and philosophical tendencies with autolycos. None of this is meant personally, autolycos. Anyway, to birthday pony’s credit, webster defines anarchy as “noun - a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority : he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.”

However, it also defines it as

“an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.”

The medieval latin is neutral on these definitions: "ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, fromanarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler.’ "

An, being without, arkhos meaning chief or ruler. This could be a ruler such as a president, emperor or king, or a chief such as a commander in chief, chief financial officer, or chief executive officer.

So, now that we’ve defined the term, where does this lead us? obviously as an ancap, I believe that it is my right to pursue property, and employ laborers to aid me in the exploitation of that property. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I believe the only true definition of capitalism is an economic system completely non-intervened from it’s processes by any individual or central authority who does not possess ownership in a specified property. So, in a capitalistic sense as I have defined, I suppose based on the first definition of anarchy, I understand, but do not agree with, ancom’s feeling of betrayal of the anarchist system because, in this case, there would still be a form of authority. I recently read an essay called "the obviousness of anarchy written by john hasnas. he states, and I’m paraphrasing, that we have been conditioned to believe that anarchy would be a state of total chaos and disorder, a hobbesian world that is “brutish, dreadful, and short” (kind of remind you of that old joke about the ladies at the catskills mountain convention with the terrible food in such small portions). Continuing, he claims that just because a society is without government, does not mean that it is without governance. In fact, he claims that there can be no society where more than one individual exists where there is NO form of governance. I found this to be an astute point, for there will always be mores, culture, and likely at the least some unconscious form of hierarchy, even in the communes that we so regularly hear of from the ancom community. So, more than a statement, I am asking birthday pony the following question (kind of a two-parter): You seem to feel that ancaps betray what a true anarchy is, but if there is NO form of governance or authority of ANY kind, who will keep the ancom turned ancap from starting a company and having his laborers removed in the case of strike? and what do you think of the john hasnas quote and the implications I derived from it. I would also like to add that I find your presence on the thread to be an invigorating one for intellectual stimulation and am actually interested in your answers. These are questions I’ve had for some time, but find it difficult to get an answer to from the mouth of an actual believer in the ancom philosophy.

cheers

[Autolykos]

@caulds989

I’ll just come right out and say this now: I am an ancap. That being said, I think autolycos is being entirely unfair to birthday pony. I think birthday pony has not shown any disrepect to ancaps, on this thread at least (I was not part of the others you all are referring to), besides his rather humorous “tired reply to a tired reply”. I think autolycos (again, I am only privy to this thread) has shown much more “attitude” and defensive platitudes than birthday pony has; you know i’m not biased because I probably share more theoretical and philosophical tendencies with autolycos. None of this is meant personally, autolycos.

I think you should read the other threads where Birthday Pony and I have interacted, then get back to me.