Then you don’t understand biology.
Btw, I don’t have anything against mutualists or other anarchists. I just thought this was unbareably cute and funny.
from there is no liz, only zuul comic strip.
I had a biology final with that word on it, my first thought was anarchy.
Nice. But I am starting to think the official definition for mutualism is “you are misrepresenting my position”.
Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I’ve been finding more and more respect for it.It’s damn radical.It’s a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps.
perhaps you could start a thread detailing the issues you see with the capitalism vs. communism dichotomy?
Mutualism is a bit hard to nail down but I’ve been finding more and more respect for it.It’s damn radical.It’s a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps.
All I get from “left libertariansm” is square circles, typical intellectual social signaling, ethical nonsense of the most blatent stripe, stuttering and stammering about the word “normative”, and maybe statement of a non-thing or two about comically bad concepts such as agorism. I have yet to see it concerned with anything of any cognitive value, it is a form of intellectual, um, “self love”.
At least Marx, for all of his kookiness, tried very hard to get rid of all that nonsense (though he failed in a spectacular manner, he was still a moralist with a bad economic theory). Proudhon was nothing but an ultra conservative religous whacko who supported LTV and called usury a bad thing.
It’s still the same old anti-capitalist message. You can’t trade money now for more money later (interest), you can’t trade your labor for goods (‘bosses’, ‘authority’), and you can’t gain use rights in land by making valuable use out of it.
There’s a reason “it’s hard to nail down”, because their message is as undefendable as other anti- property rights schemes.
I don’t think that mutualism is against property or markets.
The message is that without the state, things become more “natural.” Hence the shared terminolgy with biology. Ergo, people become more cooperative – even in the sense of ownership – because it is the most efficient use of resources and the most desirable way to do things in the absence of coercion which manipulates the market. At the same time, one cannot destroy trade or ownership of resources all together, because this probably entails a state.
I have a gut feeling that mutualism will terribly hurt the economy because I have no faith in left libertarians, they care a lot about “justice” and income equality, and very little about development and technology.So what are the arguments against mutualism? Why do you think it will hurt the economy?
So what are the arguments against mutualism? Why do you think it will hurt the economy?
The main problem is mutualists are notorious when it comes to actually saying anything. You can’t put forth an argument on something that doesn’t really state anything. The only thing mutualists do is claim the name, separate themselves from “right” libertarians, hate “right” libertarians, and then spout gibberish…many times ethical gibberish.
Oh yeah, they also seem to have a real problem with treating economics as a social science as well. That is it can’t be “value free” in the sense that biology is “value free”.
OF course what do I know, anything I said probably just “misrepresented their position”
I don’t think it is about ethics.
I think that left libertarians and right libertarians – be they those who separate themselves – are just people who make different predictions.
Brainpolice has the ‘more robust definition of freedom’ which I’ve yet to hear.
As for judging the current economy, I think right libertarians and left libertarians again play into their own predictions. The right libertarians tend to see corporations in their imagined future and more hierarchical systems even without government. Whereas the left see more sharing and open source maybe. Or some other socialist or mutual aid arrangement.
It is odd that they are different. As even Hoppe and Rockwell understand that there are huge distortions of the market. Yet make few radical conclusions from this assesment.
I for one I don’t consider predictions about the future to be valid. And as such don’t consider myself in opposition to anyone considers themselves anarchist. It seems to me that the troublemarkers are not anarchist theorists but actual people out there acting in bad ways. If people remove political and other types of unlibertarian authority, it seems that I wouldn’t have a problem with how things emerge. Whether it is communal or market or whatever. As I think the major threats imposed on or by either would be eliminated. As well, I think people who think in terms of decentralization have about the same ideas anyway.
I agree. It is about perception of reality and the premises drawn from those perceptions.
A fair assesment, particularly about future predictions. It seems though that if what matters is the economic science, there are far too many splinters and cat fights due to people putting their own pet ethical/aesthetic spin on things. In other words there seems to be some type of beauty and popularity contest.
It reminds me of two things:
-
That scene in Life of Brian where the 2 Jewish liberation groups were fighting eachother in a Roman corrider and should have been struggling against the common enemy…“The Judean People Front”.
-
If you look at anti-FDR sites (they actually exist) what you see is people who no longer care about any form of social theory or science but dudes who scrutinize one dudes every move and sentence. I would not be suprised to see these people go out and out socialist just to prove one dude wrong.
I feel it is the same mechanism that causes(at least in part) many mutualists to do what they do. They have a distaste for any “conservative” thought put forth, Hoppe*, or whatever. They are quick to bitch about AE, but I have yet to see them say anything coherent.
- note I am not defending conservatism, Hoppe, FDR or anything I am just using them to raise a point of tastes and personal preferences; they are simply ancilliary examples to the actual point.
Nihilism?
I think most of us feel this way. Those of us who are sincere about the market that is.
I don’t want this to sound like some fish baiting thread. Or at least I wasn’t intentionally trying to chest pound or bait anyone into an argument, but it seems I did do such a thing. Personally I think BP is one of the more interesting and profitable posters to read, and that is all I will say about that.
I just see mutualism as daffy and cranky, that is all.
It’s damn radical.It’s a complete upside down flip of the whole capitalism VS communism thing most believe in-even ancaps
This is important: this is nothing more than political sloganing. I can easily say I will “change the paradigms of squares and circles”, but it is really not making much of a truth statement as much as it is a social hook. Nothing is really being stated clearly, and that which can not be stated clearly should not be stated at all.
So do mutualists really believe that, absent government, people would just stop renting property and hiring labor, or that courts would stop legitimizing such arrangements?
So do mutualists really believe that, absent government, people would just stop renting property and hiring labor, or that courts would stop legitimizing such arrangements?
-
If this is the case (and I can’t say it is), no, they can only say the sentence. It is actually impossible to “believe” anything.
-
The other question that arises is what do they mean by government? I don’t think they even know/ care. A Misean can at least speak of propertarianism to various degrees of sanity and whackiness.
-
The real answer a mutualist would probably give you: “You have misrepresented my position, I never made such claims. Straw man.”
Can you elaborate?