[Red Barn]

I expect Rothbardian's just looking for some pseudo-profound, semi-scriptural sound bite (like the NAP) that he can use to go all legalistic and shit, thus "proving" that everybody on "the Left" is a big, fat doodoo head.



Welcome to the forum, though, New Comrade Prisoner. It's nice to see you.

[ThereBeDragons]

What he's looking for is a single absolutely true moral axiom, such as the NAP, from which all ideology can be derived.

He's not going to get one, so this debate is a moot point unless somebody actually wants to hear him talking about how the NAP is "empirically true."

[Prisoner Zero]

I expect Rothbardian's just looking for some pseudo-profound, semi-scriptural sound bite (like the NAP) that he can use to go all legalistic and shit, thus "proving" that everybody on "the Left" is a big, fat doodoo head.

Maybe so. But I never miss a chance to show someone some propaganda

Welcome to the forum, though, New Comrade Prisoner. It's nice to see you.

Thank you Its nice to get an anarcho-welcome . I dont know how many anarchists are on here but I've already seen more active anarchist forum members than most forums seem to have.

[Red Barn]

Yep.

We do have a fair number - and, I'm happy to report, there are some really solid, high-quality debaters among them. (We also have, as you've no doubt noticed already, a bunch of "Anarcho"-Capitalists, which is . . . interesting.)

I look forward to your contributions.

What he's looking for is a single absolutely true moral axiom, such as the NAP, from which all ideology can be derived.

He's not going to get one, so this debate is a moot point unless somebody actually wants to hear him talking about how the NAP is "empirically true."

God help us.

[Soixante-Retard]

ANARCHISM HAS NOTHING to do with the exploitative, rule-based and oppressive system of capitalism. Yet there is a part of the anarchist movement calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists"...

As we can see, the exploitative, force- and rule-based system of capitalism is not championed by any anarchists, not even the anarcho-capitalists. The critique directed from the leftist camps of anarchism towards anarcho-capitalism is therefore misplaced, inaccurate and rather ignorant. To refute the ideas and values of a philosophical movement one will have to use their definitions, or the critique will be virtually worthless....

So AnCaps instead of being "anarcho"-capitalists are in fact anarcho-"capitalists".

[Red Barn]

I've heard that argument a hundred times, Soixante-Retard, but, in the several years I've spent debating this stuff on PoFo, I've never yet seen one shred of evidence that it's actually true.

What I do see is people desperately trying to distance themselves from the inevitable real word consequences of the systems they advocate by shifting debate into a realm so abstruse and theoretical that said consequences are (they hope) lost in the shuffle.

This isn't working, obviously, but I certainly understand why you'd feel inclined to try it on.

[Soixante-Retard]

What I do see is people desperately trying to distance themselves from the inevitable real word consequences of the systems they advocate by shifting debate into a realm so abstruse and theoretical that said consequences are (they hope) lost in the shuffle.

That can be said about any strain of anarchism.

[Red Barn]

You think Left Anarchists are trying to distance themselves from . . . what? The CNT-FAI? The IWW?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Soixante-Retard]

Well, what do you think AnCaps are trying to distance themselves from? What on earth are you talking about? See, I can do this as well as you. This game is fun.

[Red Barn]

No, it isn't.



There are already a boatload of threads on this very topic, some of which you yourself have actually participated in. You might reread - just for instance - the one on why An-Caps "aren't well-liked." That one covers most of the bases, I think.

[Soixante-Retard]

Well, then, you should know that I ain't a fan of anarcho-capitalism myself. However, I will defend it, and libertarian-socialism for that matter, against mischaracterizations.


"We fight for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them."

[Rothbardian]

And what is so odd is that in my very first post I wrote

libertarian socialists advocate for the realization of self-determination of individuals and communities within all spheres of social life. This typically translates to seeking democratic participation in both political and economic life.

I saw that.

Why do libertarian socialists advocate for individualistic self determination?

What he's looking for is a single absolutely true moral axiom, such as the NAP, from which all ideology can be derived.

He's not going to get one, so this debate is a moot point unless somebody actually wants to hear him talking about how the NAP is "empirically true."

Once we establish that the left doesn't actually have any principles (which is disappointing but it's the way this thread seems to be going) we can get into what exactly the implications of that are.

I encourage you to clench your anus nice and tight and hold that smug in for just a while longer. Or, if you are the type to get upset at having discussions that may challenge your world view, there's nothing forcing you to click on the link that brings you into the content of this thread.

Forgive me, but I thought that anti-authoritarianism was a principle?

Again:

prin·ci·ple
/ˈprinsəpəl/
Noun

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning

A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.

"I don't like authority" is not a statement that falls into any of these categories. A principled statement would be something like 'authority is wrong/illegitimate/bad because _________'.

So I might take a page from anti and say authority is bad because it denies the sovereignty of the individual. I'd probably then go on to explain why I think individual sovereignty is a valid concept. So on and so forth.

I personally enjoy doing this because it allows my line of reasoning to be criticized and corrected by others, which has happened quite often. Much more productive than throwing around conclusions. Like how a teacher would make you show the steps of your math instead of just giving an answer.

I bring this up because left wingers don't seem to understand this at all. So they don't get our confusion when they make to claims that imply two sets of principles that are mutually exclusive. Like arguing that heliocentrism is obviously true in one sentence and then stating that it's a good thing the sun orbits the earth in another. Its extremely difficult and almost pointless to try to have a discussion with someone who's line of thinking is stuck in a closed loop like that.

[ThereBeDragons]

Once we establish that the left doesn't actually have any principles (which is disappointing but it's the way this thread seems to be going) we can get into what exactly the implications of that are.

You've been given enough principles to drown in. You just refuse to call them principles.

I encourage you to clench your anus nice and tight and hold that smug in for just a while longer. Or, if you are the type to get upset at having discussions that may challenge your world view, there's nothing forcing you to click on the link that brings you into the content of this thread.

I sure hope this didn't constitute "content."

I don't like authority" is not a statement that falls into any of these categories. A principled statement would be something like 'authority is wrong/illegitimate/bad because _________'.

"Authority is bad because it impinges on the the realization of self-determination of individuals and communities." This has already been said.

I personally enjoy doing this because it allows my line of reasoning to be criticized and corrected by others, which has happened quite often. Much more productive than throwing around conclusions. Like how a teacher would make you show the steps of your math instead of just giving an answer.

What you consider a conclusion, other people consider a starting point. I can always keep asking "why." Eventually will you get to a principle that has to be taken as a moral axiom, and then when you are asked "why" again you are doomed to say "that's just how it is." At this point, I could say "well so much for your shitty conclusion-based logic" and then laugh at you, but that would be a stupid way to debate. Nevertheless, I'll go with it, because I want to see how many turtles you can stack under the NAP.

I'd probably then go on to explain why I think individual sovereignty is a valid concept.

Why is individual sovereignty a valid concept?

[anticlimacus]

You've been given enough principles to drown in. You just refuse to call them principles.

Absolutely, TBD. It's clear that this is becoming a game of "those aren't principles" to "yes they are". I'm done playing it. If Rothbardian actually wants to engage in the content that has been put out there (as others have done!), that is one thing. Otherwise...

I will only speak for myself, but he should know exactly what my position is as a libertarian socialist--i.e. why I think what I think and what I think, and what I take the libertarian socialist position to be--but refuses to acknowledge this. It is clear that Roth started this thread actually believing there would be no coherent answer, and then once one was given his only strategy left was to deny it as an answer. Either that or he really only meant to antagonize. Right now, to me, he simply sounds like a child that asks "but why?" to every answer, hoping we will go into the darkest most obscure and irrelevant spheres of metaphysics...We could play this game of regressive whys too: Why the NAP?--I too want to see how many turtles Roth can stack under this.

Why do libertarian socialists advocate for individualistic self determination?

We don't.

[Joe Liberty]

I will only speak for myself, but he should know exactly what my position is as a libertarian socialist--i.e. why I think what I think and what I think, and what I take the libertarian socialist position to be--but refuses to acknowledge this. It is clear that Roth started this thread actually believing there would be no coherent answer, and then once one was given his only strategy left is to deny it as an answer. Either that or he really only meant to antagonize.

He's asking for the chain of logic that led people to their conclusions, and all he's getting are the conclusions, repeated over and over again. Positions are not principles, they are derived from principles. Principles do not describe ends so much as they define the means.

We could play this game of regressive whys too: Why the NAP?

Ironically, he's already done that.

[SolarCross]

Do traditional anarchists really reject the non-aggression principle? Do you believe that in principle it would be okay for for me to kill and steal from you?

[Red Barn]

It is clear that Roth started this thread actually believing there would be no coherent answer, and then once one was given his only strategy left is to deny it as an answer. Either that or he really only meant to antagonize.

That, or he was simply looking for an opportunity to dazzle the masses with a favorite bit of canned philosophizing he hasn't been able to fit in any place else.



I get the impression Rothbardian is a very young person.

[anticlimacus]

He's asking for the chain of logic that led people to their conclusions, and all he's getting are the conclusions, repeated over and over again. Positions are not principles, they are derived from principles. Principles do not describe ends so much as they define the means.

Not you too The belief in the self determination of individuals and communities and the rejection of centralized authority in the state and economy are principles!!! It is from this that I deduce my libertarian socialist politics!

I'll recap this, only once (And Rothbardian, you should probably pay attention here too): You seem to be asking me for a fundamental metaphysical principle, from which to base basic libertarian socialist politics. To this I have answered:

I am not aware of any anarchist credo, except for a fundamental belief in the right for communities and individuals to self-determination, and that any form of force takes the burden of proof for justification. How one arrives at that position is their own prerogative. Libertarian socialists have a variety of philosophies behind their politics. Essentially we are eclectic.

I would only add--it would be ironic for an anarchist to demand a single metaphysical principle to which all must adhere. I take anarchism as seeking eclecticism, primarily because it would be a contradiction to desire free association and self-determination while restricting it to an absolute metaphysical domga

I think most believe in the creative power of human interaction and that this works best without centralized domination. To demand a rigorous moral dogma underneath the praxis is simply a contradiction--at least to me.

I'll humor you: Philosophically, I am a Pragmatist. Read my signature, and that should give it away. Pragmatists deny the use of metaphysical principles as a starting point. We are more concerned with method. We judge things by their consequences. I want to know what works, not what "is". Or rather, what works--what we can do--is the best that we can as for. I think libertarian socialism is the best way forward. I have been trying to explain why. But I'll be damned if I force anybody to adopt my Pragmatism. You could arrive at this position because you believe God wants it to be. I don't care, just so long as you can assent to the political position of a free and stateless society. See, I strongly believe that we can have a political society with out strict adherence to metaphysical positions--that is as liberal as I go.

Do traditional anarchists really reject the non-aggression principle? Do you believe that in principle it would be okay for for me to kill and steal from you?

Of course I don't believe it would be okay to steal and kill. But I--and I believe most on the left would agree--feel that the NAP is nothing but a moral excuse for property ownership, which is nothing more (so I would argue) than the right to steal from labor and kill those who would encroach on "your" property. To that extent, yes, libertarian socialists reject bourgeois politics.

[SolarCross]

Of course I don't believe it would be okay to steal and kill. But I--and I believe most on the left would agree--feel that the NAP is nothing but a moral excuse for property ownership. To that extent, yes, libertarian socialists reject bourgeois politics.

but you own stuff, don't you? So that is "theft" and I can take it from you if I want, you know "share the wealth". PM me your address and I'll send some lads round .

[anticlimacus]

but you own stuff, don't you? So that is "theft" and I can take it from you if I want, you know "share the wealth". PM me your address and I'll send some lads round .

This must be why libertarian socialists are complaining on PoFo that they are not understood by the right wingers: you (perhaps with the exception of Eran) simply ignore what we say. The distinction between private and personal property has already been made. You may think it is fatally flawed. But clearly we make a distinction between the means of production and the products of that production to be personally consumed.