4 ms·

... besides the common goal of achieving peace and liberty by abolishing the tyranny of government. So yes, they do have a lot in common. Anarcho-socialists (w

by jaekwon 13y ago

... besides the common goal of achieving peace and liberty by abolishing the tyranny of government. So yes, they do have a lot in common. Anarcho-socialists (what steveklabnik calls "anarchists") have a reactionary attitude towards "capitalism" and see capitalism as the source of government tyranny. You'll see them claiming the word "anarchism" for themselves, and rejecting any form of capitalism. Yet you'll find that in denying the freedom of voluntary trade, this particular group fail to propose an alternative that doesn't just turn into another tyrannical state. I say, find an anarchist who can understand the Bitcoin protocol, and you'll find yourself an anarcho-capitalist. The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that they believe the free market will solve everything, and they don't believe in environmental limitations, and they have no proposed mechanism of protecting the liberties of the poor. (the poor can't buy freedom, damnit). In practice, most people admit that there should be personal property (such as your home and your body), and that there should be limitations to property (there are more empty houses in san francisco than homeless people). It's just common sense. Between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists, there is a way to achieve a good balance.

mindcrime 13y ago
Yet you'll find that in denying the freedom of voluntary trade, this particular group fail to propose an alternative that doesn't just turn into another tyrannical state. Yeah, that's always been one of my issues with anarcho-socialists - in the obsessive quest to eliminate all hierarchy, it seems that they've created a system that could only be enforced through... a hierarchy. Unless you can get every human being in a group larger than about 2 to agree on something, that is. And I'm not betting any money on that happening. In practice, most people admit that there should be personal property (such as your home and your body), and that there should be limitations to property (there are more empty houses in san francisco than homeless people). It's just common sense. Between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists, there is a way to achieve a good balance. Part of the problem with that is this: When you start having those kinds of discussions, what you refer to as "common sense" often winds up being a form of Utilitarianism, or based on Utilitarian arguments. And while Utilitarianism isn't necessarily Bad in any inherent way, it's an ideology like any other, and taken to it's further-most logical extremes, also leads to Bad Things being supported. See: the whole swathes of novels written about the evils of medical utilitarianism[1] gone too far. For this reason, among others, finding a common ground between (left) anarchism and anarcho-capitalism isn't necessarily as easy as it might seem. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian_bioethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian_bioethics

by jaekwon 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

Yet you'll find that in denying the freedom of voluntary trade, this particular group fail to propose an alternative that doesn't just turn into another tyrannical state. Yeah, that's always been one of my issues with anarcho-socialists - in the obsessive quest to eliminate all hierarchy, it seems that they've created a system that could only be enforced through... a hierarchy. Unless you can get every human being in a group larger than about 2 to agree on something, that is. And I'm not betting any money on that happening. In practice, most people admit that there should be personal property (such as your home and your body), and that there should be limitations to property (there are more empty houses in san francisco than homeless people). It's just common sense. Between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists, there is a way to achieve a good balance. Part of the problem with that is this: When you start having those kinds of discussions, what you refer to as "common sense" often winds up being a form of Utilitarianism, or based on Utilitarian arguments. And while Utilitarianism isn't necessarily Bad in any inherent way, it's an ideology like any other, and taken to it's further-most logical extremes, also leads to Bad Things being supported. See: the whole swathes of novels written about the evils of medical utilitarianism[1] gone too far. For this reason, among others, finding a common ground between (left) anarchism and anarcho-capitalism isn't necessarily as easy as it might seem. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian_bioethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian_bioethics