Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist

[Emu]

Anyone else find it ironic that he uses an Orwellian abbrevation for his social philosophy?

[Helm]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

You know my dad's a Marxist, right? Full-fledged and all. The house is littered with political and economical text. I've been reading parts of it since I was 12. You know when I told my dad for the first time that I was a whatever '-ist'? Last year. And I'm now 21. It wasn't "communist" by the way. You're rushing. You haven't considered everything in a more whole political context. You've grabbed on to something that initially seems to make sense and you're building your lego moonbase over it, adding extensions and towers and anarchocapitalist turrets that shoot flowers, in the hope that nobody will see the foundation of it is still moon-rock. What the hell is up with that analogy? Anyway, you need more rounded understanding of politics before you adopt a strong position. I can see you going "flavour of the month?! I'll show them! I'll be an anarcho-capitalist FOREVER!!" which, while hilarious, is really not the effect we're going for, here.

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

What YOU FAIL to understand is that a corporatist economic state is the natural progression of ANY capitalistic system. The State will always occur.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

How wonderful. To neutralize all the economical progression of the last 200 years sounds like a great idea.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.

To the contrary, the spoils make it very, very profitable to go to war. Also stop this 'engage in combat' shit, this isn't fencing, or d&d. Seriously, it's unnerving.

Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.

No. At least, not multinationally. Currency can only exist if it is sponsored and accepted by all interested parties as of having a ( directly related to several factors, but accepted to be as such by all) value. Otherwise it's meaningless.

Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.

Yes, yes it does matter because you do this all the time. You say :BARF and then you said the other person misunderstood you because you ment :GRAVY. You should pay attention to how you speak, and what room for construsion you leave. From how a man speaks you can understand a lot about his intellectual clarity, and furthermore, his reasons of going into discussion. The fact that you're being wrong a lot, and blaming others for misunderstanding you in this, paints you as somebody who is trying to WIN something in here.

I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.

See, you do this here again.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?

GOOD LORD. My basis for socialism is for SOCIAL considerations FOREMOST! The advancement of man! The eradication of violence and injustice! Progressive foundations of thinking!

And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?

Because the state is controlled by the little safety trigger called VOTING. Now I know this might come as a shock to you as an american, where YOU have left democracy to deteriorate to choosing between two morons who have no real authority, but in other places of the world, there's still political parties, with programs and representatives. It's not perfect, but it's better than shit. Jesus, the State is not the methaphorical boogeyman. you need to consider alternate sources of information.

You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

Again, that is up to what party you vote for, and it's program concerning education. Do you think it's a coincidence that educational programs focus more and more into producing people who can readily be assimilated in the market, instead of producing educated, aware people, who can see methaphorically far being their cock and balls? That is what YOU'RE VOTING FOR.

You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?

I said even socialists will agree socialism is not the end. You said 'for some people it is', and I said I am prepared to align even with such people (who are not really socialists) because of the agreement on step B.

It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.

No. And there's no word 'panarchic'. I get you though, 'cause I'm greek and I know pan stands for all and archic stands for law, but you know... retarded, trying to impress people, blah blah. anarchocapitalism is not panarchic. The whole point of 'archis' is that it might be dynamic, but it's the same for all within a community. See, if that's not so, we're just discussing the might of power, and that's another shade of fascism.

Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?

No, because medieval Iceland! Even the fact that you would suggest this in a modern context... retarded! Stop being! Retarded!

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.

What? Where's the difference between the two? Idiot.

Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.

The whole idea of a court is that it's ruling is respected by all. If you have private courts, there's no legal precidient that would suggest any reason to respect an infavourable result. This would suggest anarchocapitalists would very quickly become a bunch of violent crybabies, with a humonous set of different courts they go running to, suing their knee, whenever they fall down and hurt their knee.

THE POINT IS, OAO, THAT JUSTICE SERVES THE PUBLIC. THE WHOLE OF THE PUBLIC. It is there to create the necessary foundations of safety so that a whole community can prosper. Take the prosperity of the whole out of the equation, and there is no concept of justice that is applicable to this discussion. Make a new name for what you're talking about.

...

What, you jerk? Is that all?

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Oh, ok! If you cannot clearly see where the burden of proof lies in these case, I'll just continue to call you stupid.

1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.

Yet humanity's not complex enough to find loopholes around silly little private courts, right?*groan*

2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?

The real purpose it would serve would be for man to understand himself better, control himself more readily. If there's a more widely accepted moral basis than this, I cannot tell. Still not objective, because OAO, there ARE no objective moral bases.

So yeah, read some ethics while you're at it. I suggest Inventing Right and Wrong by H.Mackie as a good starting point.

there is no intrinsic value.

If you do not see how a set value of the product of labour based on the amount of effort required to produce it, is not an intrinsic value then you're uhh... stupid?

I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system.

In micro-economics. And not disproven, just not paid enough mind to.

Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.

No, you moron, they're not valued on a subjective level, the need of them in weighed on a subjective level. What you ARE saying is that let's say a nuclear power, India for example, when in great shortage of toothpicks, would rather spend 30 million dollars on a single toothpick than on another nuclear warhead. You are insane. It might NEED the toothpicks more, and spend 30 million dollars buying 30 gazillion toothpicks instead of one nuclear warhead. Can you see the distinction in this? Can you? PLEASE tell me you can.

[Emu]

Since Helm already responded to most of it, I'll just respond to a few choice quotes.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

I find that most people that give themselves -ist labels oftentimes do so because they agree with a few of the simple aspects of it and refuse to acknowlege contradictions -- exactly what you're doing here. You've had, what, 3 or 4 different people telling you quite explicitly about the inherent flaws in your system and you're STILL sticking to it? You don't even defend your positions with why they would work as opposed to what would, theoretically, make them work, like that "you know there's fiat currency, right?" thing you said below. I don't know what the hell fiat currency is, honestly. And you're not describing how 'fiat currency' would make the system work, you're just giving us vague allusions and links to websites that describe it better than you could. If you can't describe it as well or better than some website, you don't know enough about your political theory.

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

What Helm said. Capitalism ALWAYS evolves into corporatism. The only thing keeping Microsoft from being the only provider of computer software are things like anti-trust laws -- imposed on us by the government to protect consumer and entrepeneur rights. Notice: By the government.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

When you first said that, I'll admit, I immediately thought of this.
But I guess that's not what you mean.

But here's what dictionary dot com says a fiat is:

fi·at ( P )
n.

1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

This gives me the impression it has to be authorized...Authorized by WHOM, exactly? The people with the goods? Who won't want to give it up? Or would this be the last act of the government before you and your rough and tumble band of road warrior entrepeneurs overthrow it?

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.

So what the fuck were all the fights for over the past TEN THOUSAND YEARS? Fun? They were for profit, and it worked pretty well, obviously, because now we have states -- a natural progression from a society of groups of people who are under the control of a person who has a lot of wealth who acquired it in the absence of a state.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?

It's socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is almost purely economic in nature, socialism is almost purely social in nature. Why do you think America was so frightened by the Communists during the 50s?

And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?

The "state" is not an entity in any real sense. The state in America is controlled by a political party. The 'state' won't be spreading its own propaganda. The political party in control will use the state to spread its propaganda; look at what the Republicans are doing now.

You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.

What's percieved as justice becomes justice. Justice is not a universal constant in any sense of the word.

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on you for making the assertion that "ancap" would work?

[The One and Only...]

I don't have time to address all of this right now, though I hope to reply tomorrow. Needless to say I think you're wrong on several cases - the idea that the State will inevitably evolve from anarcho-capitalism is not new and has been dealt with several times before. Similiarly, the idea that PDAs will become no better the Mafia has been dealt with.

Just to clarify one point for Emu though. Practically every country in the world has fiat currency at the moment. The dollar, for example, has no value other than the value given to it by government decree.

[Helm]

Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page. Right now you're just educated stupid.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by Emu

It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

just throwing something from off the top of my head here, but is that necessarily bad? in the past, one of the fundamental requirements for a successful society has been a large, happy middle class, right? it seems to me that, if that's really what NCLB is preparing people for, it's going to prepare the average student for middle class labor and leave only those with the drive and lofty ambitions to continue their education and acheive "white collar" work. dunno, maybe, maybe not.

[Emu]

I suppose it's not necessarily a "bad" thing in the economic sense of the word. But like I said, when a few kids can't pass the test, the whole school suffers. Even those who do have the aspirations to achieve the white collar jobs typically won't have the resources OR the encouragement. The NCLB act focuses on poor-to-lower-middle district schools who need the funding anyway; the kids there are the ones who most need the aspiration. It's as if the NCLB is literally damning the whole student body to mediocrity instead of helping them reach the middle class like it was intended to do.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page.

I already told you that I plan to read things like that this summer. I want to read out of a balance of political perspectivies; Marx is an obvious, as is Nozick and Rawls, and of course I'll have to read some Rothbard and possibly Samuel Edward Konkin. Does anyone else have some suggestions in the political philosophy realm (distinction made so as not to be a repeat of my other thread)?

...educated stupid.

Wow. I want to kill that guy.

[theapportioner]

If you want some contemporary stuff, how about Dworkin and Sandel?

[The One and Only...]

Haven't heard of them. I'll have to give them a try.

Also, if anyone here is interested in learning more about/debating over anarcho-capitalism, I would suggest visting the Anti-State forums at http://anti-state.com/. You may post as a guest without registering, and yes, there are a few critics who regularly visit. All that is asked is that you keep your posts in the Newbie/Antagonist board.

This thread has kinda devolved from it's purpose and I'd rather not flood I-Mock with discussions on market anarchism.

Edit: As an afterthought, you might want to check out the forum just to see more of the criticisms of the theory.

[Helm]

what rational person would go debate an ambivalent issue on an forum called 'anti-state'? What would I expect to learn from these people? You need to hang out with a less biased crowd, dude.

[The One and Only...]

Admittedly, my attempts at a balanced perspective are somewhat half-assed, but I do come over here, don't I?

That and I'm always debating my primitivist friend...

Edit: One other thing. I recall someone mentioning that they hold that there is no plausible way that a market anarchist society could arise from our current situation.

The New Libertarian Manifesto is a good outline of how the black market can yield a market anarchist society. Quite an interesting read, although I would dispute some of the points.

[Zhukov]

OAO: read State and Revolution.

Also, try to pay attention to events unfoulding in Venezuela at the moment - something that you can follow as it evolves is just as imortant as reading books.