4 ms·

There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute b

There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation states and big companies. But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you ? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination", "authority" they supposedly despise)

evanlivingston 9y ago
But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You can't have liberty without "state monopolized justice/violence".
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather I just wanted to point out that one of the principles of Libertarianism as I understand it (freedom from government regulation of things) is counter to the libertarian value of wealth accumulation.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      There is no libertarian value of wealth accumulation. There is only the libertarian value of individual liberties such as being able to own personal property without limits. If some accumulate wealth, as long as they don't take it from others that's fine.
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Could you care to explain how we could reduce "concentrated powers" ? It's not enough to simply claim that libertarian or neoliberal are not anti-business and hence facilitate concentrated powers, you have to explain to me a better solution, how you would approach this issue. values of mutual aid and solidarity Isn't that what exchange, association and charity are about ? Theses are core libertarian values.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth than they need to provide for themselves. My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.
    - ttoinou 9y ago
      The NAP tries to draw a line between what people can do to each other in society and hence what groups of people are able to do to each other ; it doesn't tell you to not help the poor "because it's my property", it tells you you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense that you will use the stolen resources to feed someone dying (Also, maybe the "duty to rescue" is a fair legal way of dealing with small scale incidents like theses), you have to convince that person to give you the resource to help the other person. By doing so, she/he might discover others situations, have compassion, get interested in those matters, get engaged just like you do etc... Seems more fair to me for everyone. And you can be libertarian and have the value to help other individuals, theses values are not mutually exclusive. Note : not all libertarian think with the NAP. I personally think it might be a great intellectual construct and could be good to introduce libertarianism to people ; but I'm not sure about how it could fit into our actual society and laws. There's 200 years of very interesting classic liberalism philosophy before Rand and Rothbard :) When solidarity is taken as a core value What do you mean by that ? Try to create some laws or use case, or give me a link to people you read that talk about that ;) My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ? For example running the whole economy through the visible hand of the friendly politicians, as a mean to control society and be 100 % sure that no one dies of hunger in the street.
ue_ 9y ago
>Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" I disagree. Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital. The tyranny being spoken of is found hiding in a shallow place - under the guise of free exchange, free enterprise, free association. Many would contend property is tyranny - beacuse it is due to the existence of property for which generations of people have to toil while surrendering the fruits of their labour to the landlord, capitalist, State etc. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes. And what right does the landlord have over the property? Transferred title from a time when it was forcibly enclosed by the state or transformed into property without the consent of all at the time - i.e it is an arbitrary right founded on violence. The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. "The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there." (Max Stirner)
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital What's wrong with that ? That's a good thing. Gathering human and physical capital, saving and investing are the mechanisms that enabled us humans to make such tremendous progress. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes I think the rules of the game are generally fair, but the initial conditions inherited from history are not. But I understand what you mean if you don't believe the rules are "fair" and if you believe there's an alternative to our "capitalist system". The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. I read a lot of left leaning authors years ago before discovering french XIX th century liberalism (including Max Stirner most famous text). I never found anything remotely concerned about the course of actions society should engage to abolish private property. Seriously, I've been searching for years. I'm open to any text if you have some.

evanlivingston 9y ago

But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.

valuearb 9y ago
You can't have liberty without "state monopolized justice/violence".
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather I just wanted to point out that one of the principles of Libertarianism as I understand it (freedom from government regulation of things) is counter to the libertarian value of wealth accumulation.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    There is no libertarian value of wealth accumulation. There is only the libertarian value of individual liberties such as being able to own personal property without limits. If some accumulate wealth, as long as they don't take it from others that's fine.
ttoinou 9y ago
Could you care to explain how we could reduce "concentrated powers" ? It's not enough to simply claim that libertarian or neoliberal are not anti-business and hence facilitate concentrated powers, you have to explain to me a better solution, how you would approach this issue. values of mutual aid and solidarity Isn't that what exchange, association and charity are about ? Theses are core libertarian values.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth than they need to provide for themselves. My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    The NAP tries to draw a line between what people can do to each other in society and hence what groups of people are able to do to each other ; it doesn't tell you to not help the poor "because it's my property", it tells you you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense that you will use the stolen resources to feed someone dying (Also, maybe the "duty to rescue" is a fair legal way of dealing with small scale incidents like theses), you have to convince that person to give you the resource to help the other person. By doing so, she/he might discover others situations, have compassion, get interested in those matters, get engaged just like you do etc... Seems more fair to me for everyone. And you can be libertarian and have the value to help other individuals, theses values are not mutually exclusive. Note : not all libertarian think with the NAP. I personally think it might be a great intellectual construct and could be good to introduce libertarianism to people ; but I'm not sure about how it could fit into our actual society and laws. There's 200 years of very interesting classic liberalism philosophy before Rand and Rothbard :) When solidarity is taken as a core value What do you mean by that ? Try to create some laws or use case, or give me a link to people you read that talk about that ;) My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ? For example running the whole economy through the visible hand of the friendly politicians, as a mean to control society and be 100 % sure that no one dies of hunger in the street.

ue_ 9y ago

>Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" I disagree. Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital. The tyranny being spoken of is found hiding in a shallow place - under the guise of free exchange, free enterprise, free association. Many would contend property is tyranny - beacuse it is due to the existence of property for which generations of people have to toil while surrendering the fruits of their labour to the landlord, capitalist, State etc. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes. And what right does the landlord have over the property? Transferred title from a time when it was forcibly enclosed by the state or transformed into property without the consent of all at the time - i.e it is an arbitrary right founded on violence. The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. "The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there." (Max Stirner)

ttoinou 9y ago
Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital What's wrong with that ? That's a good thing. Gathering human and physical capital, saving and investing are the mechanisms that enabled us humans to make such tremendous progress. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes I think the rules of the game are generally fair, but the initial conditions inherited from history are not. But I understand what you mean if you don't believe the rules are "fair" and if you believe there's an alternative to our "capitalist system". The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. I read a lot of left leaning authors years ago before discovering french XIX th century liberalism (including Max Stirner most famous text). I never found anything remotely concerned about the course of actions society should engage to abolish private property. Seriously, I've been searching for years. I'm open to any text if you have some.