7 ms·

As an anarchs-capitalist I'd be happy to have a society where anarchs-communists had their communes and lived under their own rules. This may seem off topic bu

by MCRed 11y ago

As an anarchs-capitalist I'd be happy to have a society where anarchs-communists had their communes and lived under their own rules. This may seem off topic but its directly relevant- we regularly have these debates in the anarchist community. But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too. (Yes, the irony is lost on them.) For people who are conditioned to believe it-- the others must be forced to live the way they think is appropriate--otherwise things are not "Fair". Jealousy, fear, all these emotions are easily manipulated by propaganda. To the detriment of tolerance. So, while I want to see gay married couples defending their marijuana crops with fully auto machine guns, and saying whatever they want online, because I believe in human rights, I must admit I am surrounded by two groups of people who do not believe in human rights and are increasingly seeing the other group as less than human. This will not end well.

Absentinsomniac 11y ago
Too simplistic, regional arrangements don't necessarily mean everyone in said community follows the ideology of that group. Moving outside of the realm of abstracted ideological thought experiments is kind of a difficult thing. So how do you handle folks breaking your version of human rights in separate groups? Just ignore it? How's that much different from nation states?
vidarh 11y ago
> But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too. The main difference between the libertarian left and right tends to be whether they see property rights as some sort of special exception from the principle of maximising liberty, or a some form of theft because it limits liberty. I don't know many far left libertarians (anarchists or otherwise) who'd give a shit how you choose to live as long as you are not proposing systems that would limit the liberty of others. The right libertarian ideas that tends to be seen by the left as drastically limiting the liberty of others tends to be right libertarian ideas about strict enforcement of property rights and shared responsibility for externalities. E.g. if you see property as theft, then someone wanting to wall off land is not a simple matter of you wanting to live differently, but a matter of you wanting to deprive others of liberty. So from the left libertarian point of view, there is no irony, but the consequence of following the principle of maximizing personal liberty to the end, rather than making large carve-outs for property.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > if you see property as theft, then someone wanting to wall off land is not a simple matter of you wanting to live differently, but a matter of you wanting to deprive others of liberty. Yes, and the problem with this definition of "liberty" is that it makes it impossible for "liberty" to coexist with peaceful cooperation and trade, since peaceful cooperation and trade require property rights. And without peaceful cooperation and trade, you can't create wealth. So "liberty" as defined by the left libertarian is a recipe for poverty and war. As indeed we see wherever such systems have been tried. > from the left libertarian point of view, there is no irony, but the consequence of following the principle of maximizing personal liberty to the end Yes, which also means that "maximizing personal liberty" requires, as I said above, poverty and war. You stated the example in terms of land, but it applies just as well to any kind of property. If you have a house, or a car, or a wallet full of money, and I want it, "maximizing personal liberty" means I can just take it, because, hey, I'm just exercising my liberty. Of course you can also exercise your liberty by shooting me when I try. Good luck trying to have a stable society on that basis.
st3v3r 11y ago
"But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too." Because generally, you guys insist on living in the community and getting all the benefits of doing so, without following that community's rules. Basically, you're saying that those people do not have the right to govern themselves, because when you live in that community, you have become one of those people. "So, while I want to see gay married couples defending their marijuana crops with fully auto machine guns, and saying whatever they want online, because I believe in human rights" I fail to see how fully auto machine guns involved in any way leads to human rights. Those devices only exist to deprive other humans of their right to live.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Firearms actually allow humans to defend their right to life. The reason is that they are the ultimate equalizer. A gun allows the 4'11", 89-pound, 79-year-old female to protect herself when attacked by the 6'4", 240-pound, 27-year-old male (or the 5'11", 160-pound female, etc). Then, after said defense takes place, the law sorts out the consequences: right-makes-right, rather than might-makes-right. Or, in the absence of law enforcement, (e.g. the American frontier), it at least allows potential victims the potential to defend themselves, and gives potential attackers pause: even if they don't have to worry about being arrested and put on trial, they have to consider that their next victim might be armed. Conversely, in the absence of firearms, the biggest and strongest wins. And in the presence of law enforcement, by the time the police arrive, it's too late. For this reason, one of the first steps an oppressive government takes is to disarm the population. Examples of this go all the way back to even feudal Japan. It's kind of amazing that we still haven't learned our lesson. Idealism is great, but human lifetimes are relatively short, and human societies are clearly not a succession of "standing upon the shoulders of giants."

by MCRed 11y ago

Absentinsomniac 11y ago

Too simplistic, regional arrangements don't necessarily mean everyone in said community follows the ideology of that group. Moving outside of the realm of abstracted ideological thought experiments is kind of a difficult thing. So how do you handle folks breaking your version of human rights in separate groups? Just ignore it? How's that much different from nation states?

vidarh 11y ago

> But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too. The main difference between the libertarian left and right tends to be whether they see property rights as some sort of special exception from the principle of maximising liberty, or a some form of theft because it limits liberty. I don't know many far left libertarians (anarchists or otherwise) who'd give a shit how you choose to live as long as you are not proposing systems that would limit the liberty of others. The right libertarian ideas that tends to be seen by the left as drastically limiting the liberty of others tends to be right libertarian ideas about strict enforcement of property rights and shared responsibility for externalities. E.g. if you see property as theft, then someone wanting to wall off land is not a simple matter of you wanting to live differently, but a matter of you wanting to deprive others of liberty. So from the left libertarian point of view, there is no irony, but the consequence of following the principle of maximizing personal liberty to the end, rather than making large carve-outs for property.

pdonis 11y ago
> if you see property as theft, then someone wanting to wall off land is not a simple matter of you wanting to live differently, but a matter of you wanting to deprive others of liberty. Yes, and the problem with this definition of "liberty" is that it makes it impossible for "liberty" to coexist with peaceful cooperation and trade, since peaceful cooperation and trade require property rights. And without peaceful cooperation and trade, you can't create wealth. So "liberty" as defined by the left libertarian is a recipe for poverty and war. As indeed we see wherever such systems have been tried. > from the left libertarian point of view, there is no irony, but the consequence of following the principle of maximizing personal liberty to the end Yes, which also means that "maximizing personal liberty" requires, as I said above, poverty and war. You stated the example in terms of land, but it applies just as well to any kind of property. If you have a house, or a car, or a wallet full of money, and I want it, "maximizing personal liberty" means I can just take it, because, hey, I'm just exercising my liberty. Of course you can also exercise your liberty by shooting me when I try. Good luck trying to have a stable society on that basis.

st3v3r 11y ago

"But at the end of the day, it seems the anarchs-communists don't want to live under their own rules for themselves, they want us to live under their rules too." Because generally, you guys insist on living in the community and getting all the benefits of doing so, without following that community's rules. Basically, you're saying that those people do not have the right to govern themselves, because when you live in that community, you have become one of those people. "So, while I want to see gay married couples defending their marijuana crops with fully auto machine guns, and saying whatever they want online, because I believe in human rights" I fail to see how fully auto machine guns involved in any way leads to human rights. Those devices only exist to deprive other humans of their right to live.

alphapapa 11y ago
Firearms actually allow humans to defend their right to life. The reason is that they are the ultimate equalizer. A gun allows the 4'11", 89-pound, 79-year-old female to protect herself when attacked by the 6'4", 240-pound, 27-year-old male (or the 5'11", 160-pound female, etc). Then, after said defense takes place, the law sorts out the consequences: right-makes-right, rather than might-makes-right. Or, in the absence of law enforcement, (e.g. the American frontier), it at least allows potential victims the potential to defend themselves, and gives potential attackers pause: even if they don't have to worry about being arrested and put on trial, they have to consider that their next victim might be armed. Conversely, in the absence of firearms, the biggest and strongest wins. And in the presence of law enforcement, by the time the police arrive, it's too late. For this reason, one of the first steps an oppressive government takes is to disarm the population. Examples of this go all the way back to even feudal Japan. It's kind of amazing that we still haven't learned our lesson. Idealism is great, but human lifetimes are relatively short, and human societies are clearly not a succession of "standing upon the shoulders of giants."