3 ms·

As an anarchist, I feel this is necessary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

ptah 7y ago
how do you enforce that
- Toine 7y ago
  with aggression (Seriously, I wonder in what world some people live. Violence is everywhere.)
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense. Has there been ANY war a modern nation state has ever waged that hasn't been framed as self defense?
  - ptah 7y ago
    forceful defense in action and it's demise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7lBDXp0Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7lBDXp0Lc
littlestymaar 7y ago
For the record: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism The NAP comes from libertarianism, which is as far as you can get from anarchism. Anarchism means free cooperation between people with no transcendental rule apart "everyone is equal", while libertarianism (and the NAP) means "private property is paramount". Anarchism was born in the 19s century as a part of the socialist movement, while libertarianism is an alt-right movement which grew in the US during the cold war, as a reaction to socialism.
- mcv 7y ago
  There's a bit more to it than that. Anarchism grew out of 19th century libertarian socialism. So not all forms of libertarianism are far removed from anarchism, though the attitude towards private property is indeed the most striking difference between anarchists/libertarian socialists, and libertarian capitalists/anarcho-capitalists.
- lisper 7y ago
  Both anarchism and libertarianism have one thing in common though: both are adolescent utopian fantasies, completely unworkable in the real world because they are not evolutionarily stable strategies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Nah, you can always make unstable strategies viable by having a powerful party intervene on the system...
  - arethuza 7y ago
    I wonder if its the anarchists or the libertarians you have upset?
  - WaxProlix 7y ago
    What is and is not an evolutionarily stable strategy will always be defined by the environment in which populations exist. A change in environment will disrupt any equilibrium. Capitalism as it exists now, for instance, might seem to be an ESS, but a change in conditions could change that. Similarly, on a long enough timeline, the vast, vast majority of strategies (so far) have proven non-viable. Doesn't mean they don't work for some groups, or for a time. (I suspect your downvotes are from mudslinging with 'adolescent' and 'utopian', which sort of clash with/give the lie to your air of dispassionate analysis)
    - lisper 7y ago
      I didn't intend for it to be dispassionate. The NAP doesn't work because it would require a suspension of the laws of physics. If you are unwilling to engage in violence on principle then your resources will get taken from you by someone or some thing who is less willing to be bound by principle. It's really that simple. Anarchists and libertarians who subscribe to the NAP are no different from the adherents/victims of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment who think they can use quantum mechanics to cause objects to materialize with the power of their minds. I think the adjectives "adolescent" and "utopian" are quite apt in both cases. (And it doesn't surprise me a bit that I'm getting downvoted. Adolescent utopians and cult leaders rarely react well to being called out. But I care about the truth more than I care about HN karma.)
opportune 7y ago
"anarcho"-capitalism is not related to the rest of anarchism

ptah 7y ago

how do you enforce that

Toine 7y ago
with aggression (Seriously, I wonder in what world some people live. Violence is everywhere.)
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense. Has there been ANY war a modern nation state has ever waged that hasn't been framed as self defense?
- ptah 7y ago
  forceful defense in action and it's demise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7lBDXp0Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7lBDXp0Lc

littlestymaar 7y ago

For the record: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism The NAP comes from libertarianism, which is as far as you can get from anarchism. Anarchism means free cooperation between people with no transcendental rule apart "everyone is equal", while libertarianism (and the NAP) means "private property is paramount". Anarchism was born in the 19s century as a part of the socialist movement, while libertarianism is an alt-right movement which grew in the US during the cold war, as a reaction to socialism.

mcv 7y ago
There's a bit more to it than that. Anarchism grew out of 19th century libertarian socialism. So not all forms of libertarianism are far removed from anarchism, though the attitude towards private property is indeed the most striking difference between anarchists/libertarian socialists, and libertarian capitalists/anarcho-capitalists.
lisper 7y ago
Both anarchism and libertarianism have one thing in common though: both are adolescent utopian fantasies, completely unworkable in the real world because they are not evolutionarily stable strategies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Nah, you can always make unstable strategies viable by having a powerful party intervene on the system...
- arethuza 7y ago
  I wonder if its the anarchists or the libertarians you have upset?
- WaxProlix 7y ago
  What is and is not an evolutionarily stable strategy will always be defined by the environment in which populations exist. A change in environment will disrupt any equilibrium. Capitalism as it exists now, for instance, might seem to be an ESS, but a change in conditions could change that. Similarly, on a long enough timeline, the vast, vast majority of strategies (so far) have proven non-viable. Doesn't mean they don't work for some groups, or for a time. (I suspect your downvotes are from mudslinging with 'adolescent' and 'utopian', which sort of clash with/give the lie to your air of dispassionate analysis)
  - lisper 7y ago
    I didn't intend for it to be dispassionate. The NAP doesn't work because it would require a suspension of the laws of physics. If you are unwilling to engage in violence on principle then your resources will get taken from you by someone or some thing who is less willing to be bound by principle. It's really that simple. Anarchists and libertarians who subscribe to the NAP are no different from the adherents/victims of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment who think they can use quantum mechanics to cause objects to materialize with the power of their minds. I think the adjectives "adolescent" and "utopian" are quite apt in both cases. (And it doesn't surprise me a bit that I'm getting downvoted. Adolescent utopians and cult leaders rarely react well to being called out. But I care about the truth more than I care about HN karma.)

opportune 7y ago

"anarcho"-capitalism is not related to the rest of anarchism