[Happyhippo]

This little article has been bugging me for a while as I can`t seem to put the final nail in the coffin for this argument against anarchism.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin186.htm

The main argument is that the individual`s choice in socialism is always subordinate to The Group, no matter how we arrange our society. I do have some objections to this idea, but none of them are particularly strong and it`s getting quite old to just point to the problems in the libertarian-right philosophy instead of adressing this problem. Right now it seems like a rather big problem and I would like to see how other anarchists feel about it.

[Kman]

Its not a problem you can solve, you have a better chance getting water to run uphill than you do making libertarian socialism have anything to do with liberty.

[Happyhippo]

Its not a problem you can solve, you have a better chance getting water to run uphill than you do making libertarian socialism have anything to do with liberty.

It`s not that hard to make water run uphill with equipment

While I agree that anarchists usually downplay the "tyranny of majority" issue, it`s not like you guys don`t have your own problems with tyranny. Besides how are you going to escape social pressure? This particular instance of human interaction is happening in every system, but it`s obviously much more serious for systems that can be summed up in the word democracy

[Kman]

It`s not that hard to make water run uphill with equipment

Not that I want to get into a semantics discussion but water ''running'' implies to me as water moving without the use of human force and as I said good luck getting water to run uphill without the use of human force.

Unless you are gonna redefine the english language it cant be done.

While I agree that anarchists usually downplay the "tyranny of majority" issue, it`s not like you guys don`t have your own problems with tyranny.

Our ''tyranny'' is almost non-existant, in a libertarian society you can trade with whoever you want for whatever price you want and you can engage in practically every kind of behavior you want as long as your not harming anyone else. If you want to start a business selling shower curtains then you can do so, you cannot do that in a libertarian socialist state since they have alot of rules prohibiting you from engaging in tons of consensual behavior.

Consensual behavior between adults is not prohibited in a true libertarian society however.

Besides how are you going to escape social pressure?

What exactly do you mean by social pressure? are you talking about individuals choosing to not interact with X person because said individuals dont like that person? There might be collections of people in a libertarian society choosing to follow the same route of action but if some people decide to break the mold and go against the majority then they can do so without legal repercussions, they wont be thrown in jail for it.

This particular instance of human interaction is happening in every system

There is a huge difference between the force coming out of nature and man made force, the bodily forces that command man to work in order to stay alive cannot be abolished under any political system, force created by men enforcing their way of life on you however is a completely different concept.

[Happyhippo]

Not that I want to get into a semantics discussion but water ''running'' implies to me as water moving without the use of human force and as I said good luck getting water to run uphill without the use of human force.

It was just a joke I don`t agree that it`s anything like making water run upwards, so this is just a waste of time

As for the rest of your post, I highly suspect that it comes from the fact that you take private ownership over land and other natural resources for granted or "natural", when in fact we have reasons for rejecting that. The fact that 50,1% of the people will make 49,9% of the people suffer is horrible, but it`s not an argument for letting one person decide something that will make thousand suffer which will happen when the owner of the land where those thousand people live decide to do something against their will. The first is close to the worst-case scenarion for democracy, while the latter is close to a worst-case scenario for your position.

There`s also a concept known as decentralized democracy where the people most affected by the decision will have more to say than the ones who are barely affected at all.

Your point of reference when it comes to force is pretty much arbitary as I don`t think the homesteading principle is a particularly strong justification for letting a person claim ownership over land. Ownership over land is very difficult, and it really annoys me to see right-libertarians think their idea is somehow natural or the only way, while they are completely oblivious to other ideas on how to distribute natural resources. Believe what you want (and your view is perfectly legitimate), but don`t go around pretending your view is something natural or the only way, it makes you look incredibly ignorant of other thoughts. Besides you are free to start you own little business in a libertarian socialism. What makes you think you can`t? The only thing we oppose is you hiring in slaves you can exploit, to put it extremely dogmatically.

To clear it up: I believe claiming ownership of land is theft and not a force from nature.

[Kman]

but don`t go around pretending your view is something natural or the only way, it makes you look incredibly ignorant of other thoughts.

So because I think im right im ignorant?

Besides you are free to start you own little business in a libertarian socialism.

Yeah but I cant hire anyone even if they would love to work for me (if I had access to more capital goods than they did for example since that would make it possible for them to earn much much more using my tools than simply working on their own).

You are banning consensual agreements between adults in your ''libertarian'' society, something real libertarians wouldnt ban since we dont hate freedom like you do.

[Happyhippo]

Yeah but I cant hire anyone even if they would love to work for me (if I had access to more capital goods than they did for example since that would make it possible for them to earn much much more using my tools than simply working on their own).

You are banning consensual agreements between adults in your ''libertarian'' society, something real libertarians wouldnt ban since we dont hate freedom like you do.

Since when did choosing which master to obey become a concensual agreement. If the options are to choose an overlord or starve to death, it`s not really a choice.

I`m of the opinion that it`s perfectly legitimate to let you get compensated for the labour you did producing those tools, but nothing more. Good luck getting enough capital in an anarchist society without exploiting someone to let this be a real problem.

[Kman]

Since when did choosing which master to obey become a concensual agreement. If the options are to choose an overlord or starve to death, it`s not really a choice.

That isnt what im talking about, even if we create your little delusional fantasy world where everyone works on their own you will still have situations where some people will prefer to work for others instead of on their own because working for someone that has saved alot of resources in order to buy capital goods generates a higher wage than working alone, in such a situation both parties will have an interest in coming together. Its not a question of whether or not your gonna starve if said person is moving from a low paid job to a high paid job where he or she has a boss.

I`m of the opinion that it`s perfectly legitimate to let you get compensated for the labour you did producing those tools, but nothing more.

And who will determine this in your ''free'' society?

Good luck getting enough capital in an anarchist society without exploiting someone to let this be a real problem.

Your delusional and I hope people like you never reach any position of power over anyone else.

[eugenekop]

I believe claiming ownership of land is theft and not a force from nature.

Then what do you propose instead? Share the land equally between all people? Now tell me what a kid from Pakistan has to do with a horse I tamed in the nearby pasture? Should he own a 1/7 billionth of that horse? What if we now discover 1 trillion aliens, should we also share our land with them? If not, then why not? Why not just let a person who has some connection with a natural resource to own it? (naturally without harming the rights of those who used that resource before that). I'm pretty sure that's the fairest idea of ownership you can come up with.

[MB.]

Isn't Bookchin a libertarian socialist? Isn't libertarian socialism based on ecology?

[SecretSquirrel]

"libertarian socialism" is a contradiction in terms. Socialism is 100% anti-liberty.

You have a better chance getting water to run uphill than you do making libertarian socialism have anything to do with liberty.

[MB.]

That's wrong, Secret Squirrel. I have one question for you: what is your definition of liberty?

[Melodramatic]

The problem of this argument is its perspective. A libertarian* perspective makes understanding anarchism impossible.

The main argument is that the individual`s choice in socialism is always subordinate to The Group, no matter how we arrange our society.

This is naturally true on a few levels.

The first is the definition of society and politics. Everything is subject to the whim of those with power. That's the nature of human society. Even in the most libertarian universe one can think of, where all laws are "universal" it is only those who have the most, usually economic, influence that can determine what is a murder and what is self defense. So in a anarchist society, instead of focusing on making imaginary "non-political zones", we want to take the power back tot he people (the true meaning of democracy). In a sentence, the tyranny of the majority cannot truly be prevented, but the tyranny of the minority can be.

The second is on a social level. Indeed, individual`s choice in everything is always subordinate to The Group. Socialism in deeper than some political schema, its about social change. The way I see it any "political body", collectives and unions for example, in anarchism is just an artificial form of something that exists within society already. The ultimate goal of any such body is to be unneeded, that society itself will adopt their functions. And yes in society people are part of a bigger group, and are subject to it. There is nothing tyrannical about it, its how people work.

The part I don't understand, in the article, is the one about opting out. You can't "opt out" because anarchism is not a proprietor. There is no "anarchist land", or "anarchist law". You can't opt out of society, because opting out is a social stance. I don't see any reason for an anarchist collective to harm or hound anybody who does not feel connected to it, anymore than any society does by being a society. and if one shall harm the people, by exploiting them or, say, building a waste plant in their drinking water, common in capitalism, they can't hide behind their opting out. Without a state to protect and alienate them they will have to face the people themselves, although even than I believe the people will not need to resort to violent measures.

Our ''tyranny'' is almost non-existant, in a libertarian society you can trade with whoever you want for whatever price you want and you can engage in practically every kind of behavior you want as long as your not harming anyone else.

For that sentence to be true you will have to both forgo both the common definition of tyranny and harm.

If you want to start a business selling shower curtains then you can do so, you cannot do that in a libertarian socialist state since they have alot of rules prohibiting you from engaging in tons of consensual behavior.

Wrong.

Yeah but I cant hire anyone even if they would love to work for me

You can try, but I suspect they will eventually demand equal ownership of the tools they are using, in which case there will be no state to say "No, we reserve his privilege to profit effortlessly!".

*Right libertarian, I am using the term to describe only them, to avoid confusion.

[issacgrey]

From my understanding, libertarian socialism is merely a group of political philosophies that wish to abolish authoritarian institutions that control the means of production,by using direct democracy, trade unions and the like.
For example, instead of having a corporation run a factory, the workers run the factory, each being treated as a social & economic equal.(i.e. , decision making at the factory being implemented by democratic vote).
The libertarian aspect of libertarian socialism is referring more likely than not to anarchism,with the destruction of the state,as opposed to my understanding of Kman's idea of libertarianism,which I feel is more minarchist in nature than actual libertarianism.

[Donna]

Unlike libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism was actually implemented with organization, duration and mass support before being violently put down.

Libertarians and AnCaps like to pretend they invented liberty even though the term libertarianism itself originated from socialist tendencies.

The only thing libertarians and AnCaps have invented are pedophile rights and an assortment of regurgitated stirnerism. They belong to the proverbial dust bin of history and normal/sane anarchists are right to laugh at them.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Actually that whole little happening in Spain, if that's what you are referencing, was really the perfect storm. Fascists, communists and blac bloc anarchists all murdering each other... it's how WWII should have gone down all over Europe.