5 ms·

> Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values... > ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation a

• pron 11y ago
  > I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency While I'm very fond of anarchism (not its libertarian interpretations), I've always find its libertarian forms completely inconsistent (and very, very restrictive and far from free) under a guise of consistency (and freedom). The key is that everything can look consistent if you ignore the facts. It's ethics for spherical cows, and it's not simple but simplistic. Every ethics begins that way, but then there are lots of complications that stem from how the world works. Libertarian anarchism stops there, at the logic stage. It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world. The main issue is what constitutes aggression. A clever teenager could say, "let's draw the line at physical harm!" but an educated scientist knows that physical aggression is rare, and is only used in those circumstances where common aggression fails. Common aggression works by intimidation (as I've shown -- even in the animal kingdom) and emergent social forces (like economics). You can only draw those arbitrary lines if you choose not to study aggression. If you choose not to learn something, then everything seems simple and consistent because it remains a Platonic ideal. Once you study aggression and see how it really works you realize that preventing aggression requires a very intricate ethics. Which is why I'm for anarchism without false and arbitrary restrictions on aggression (which only serve to increase it in its common forms), or an intricate system of ethics and law that serves to really reduce aggression, but is a far cry from anarchy. Just to very quickly explain the difference, in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. If it isn't, there's no balance in the system. The rich can inflict economic aggression without fear of reprecussion. Once you add "no-agression" to anarchy, you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system. > Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy. I used the word "allowed" loosely in this case, to mean a combination of ethics and a possible enforcement structure. The belief that only a central authority grants permission is a common mistake among libertarians, that, as I said, stop at the logical reasoning stage and don't examine the facts. Centralized government is a recent invention, at least in the Western world -- 400 years or so (that the Roman Empire appears to us like a central authority is an anachronism based on extrapolation from what we know). Yet enforcement has existed throughout human history in much more diffuse ways. Now, back to the example. So you say it's OK to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you". Fine. Now what happens when I deny evolution? If I know you'll never stab me then there must be some enforcement at play. But that means that I know your threat to be empty to begin with, and so no intimidation took place. In the real world, that's not the case. The possibility that you will stab me is always on the table. If so, stabbing me for denying evolution is most certainly a restriction of my free speech. And if that option exists, intimidating me with the threat also restricts my free speech. > It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice Because that's how human society existed until not too long ago, it isn't some thought exercise, and we know how that looks in practice. That is a form of governance, but without a central authority. > your first two paragraphs are totally wrong No, they are not. Your confusion stems from the anachronistic conflation of laws with a central state. Laws are rules based on ethics with some enforcement mechanism. That enforcement can be excommunication. In fact, that was the primary form of enforcement until not long ago. A highly distributed system of justice was the norm (again, at least in the West; I haven't studied the history of Asia).
  • woodman 11y ago
    > It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world. Ok, so to be clear, you don't have a logical inconsistency to point to? Your complaint is purely utilitarian? Well, I don't really have much to say about that except that such a perspective only ever serves those presently in power. > The main issue is what constitutes aggression. The initiation of force, force strictly related to property rights (derived from universal preference, not state fiat). But before you equate my views to that of an adolescent again, let me first say that you've consistently redefined words. You've indicated that english isn't your native language, which could explain it - despite your command of the language otherwise, except for the fact that all your redefinitions shift the meaning to a very broad definition that supports your position. That is what kicked the whole thread off, your redefinition of violence to include spoken word - and you've done it several more times here: aggression has been redefined to include economics, laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree, one's own fears (rational or otherwise) and choices as a consequence constitute restriction by some other party. If your political opinions are so informed by nature, I don't understand how you could possibly think any system could exist where individuals enjoy the total absence of any outside stimuli that may cause them discomfort or hinder them in living out their every fantasy. Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings. > ...in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. Well, that is really no different than the way things are now. I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you - just the likelihood of total personal destruction as delivered by the state. > ...you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system. Consider for a moment the sort of world that we'd live in if aggression was redefined to your liking. The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists. Economics would grind to a halt as VCs are shuttered for all the human rights violations perpetrated in not funding everybody who approaches them. Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number. You'll find no freedom if you live at the mercy of somebody else's emotional interpretations, but you'll certainly find consistency and equality: constant misery for everybody.