3 ms·

Simple argumentation often elicits a complex response when the issue itself is complex, as simple arguments can miss important elements of the issue. The diffe

Simple argumentation often elicits a complex response when the issue itself is complex, as simple arguments can miss important elements of the issue. The difference here is regarding whether private property is considered a political institution (as you're considering it) or more a natural social institution (like language). This is also the essential difference between right anarchism and left anarchism. The right of a starving person to food produced by others is relevant to determining whether wage labour is free or 'coerced'. If they have no right to food produced by others, then modern society isn't forcing them to have any less food than they otherwise would, hence I would argue that it's not accurate to say society is 'coercing' them. In the sense that coercion is defined as threatening to make someone's life worse off if they don't do what you want them to (which is the definition I was using). Here's a thought experiment to identify libertarian/right anarchist morality. Imagine you're walking in a park, and see Rich Uncle Bob, who has just invented a cure for eugitis, walking along carrying sacks of the cure. You also see Poorman Joe lying on the ground nearby, soon to die of eugitis. You have a weapon. Assuming it was legally allowed and you were guaranteed success, would you threaten Rich Uncle Bob with the weapon to make him give some of the cure to Poorman Joe, saving Joe's life? People with personal moral philosophies that are more pro-property would generally say no. Now change Poorman Joe to one's sick spouse/child/parent. Generally only libertarians or market anarchists would still answer no in this case. I think that scenario acts as a microcosm for the general differences in moral beliefs between pro- and anti- market types.

jahaja 12y ago
First of all, there's no such thing as right anarchism - if you by that means the so called, in america, libertarianism a.k.a anarco-capitalism - Anarchism is a path of Socialism. Private-property is against the most fundamental ideas of anarchism. This revisionism winds me up to no end. And no, simple argumentations doesn't require a complex response. Often that's just a bad excuse to cloud responses in a viel of complexity which requires more energy to interpret and reply to. A perfect example of this overcomplexification is this point regarding food produced by others and the indirect coercion of todays society of the propertyless. Either that or you're just missing the point - fair enough in that case. It's very plain to see and understand, I think, that a person today without property (or capital) is indirectly forced to rent out his or her labor, to try to overcomplexify this by ancap philosophical nonsense is just dishonest. The produced food isn't even the issue here, it's the politically decided and upheld privilege of private-property and in the end the ownership of the means of production. A proper non-forced choice would require that the person has enough land to be self-sufficent or enough capital to study or work for oneself. I would also advise you to read and understand the distinction between private-property and posessions that anarchism makes.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Anarchism literally means (in the original Greek) 'no ruler'; anarcho-capitalism fits that definition, no? It's impossible for people to communicate if they aren't both using the same definitions of particular words. It's not 'overcomplexification' to clearly define the terms used, it's a necessary step in having a non-nonsensical conversational interchange. In this case, the issue is over 'forced'. When you state "a person today without property (or capital) is indirectly forced to rent out his or her labor", you're referring to them being forced by circumstance, not by anyone actively setting out to deprive them of food. Whether or not to consider this (or anything else) a bad thing is a moral judgement. Moral judgements require philosophical analysis. I'm pointing out that, in the context of the viewpoint that only actively forcing people (i.e. do this or I'll hit you) is bad, what you describe as a 'non-forced' choice involves force against other parties, but the 'indirectly forced' choice doesn't. How? If a person is born without enough land or capital to be self-sufficient, and all the land and capital in the world at their time of birth was already used by others, then giving them enough land or capital to be self-sufficient would necessarily (assuming it wasn't given voluntarily through charity) require direct force to take the land/capital of others to give to this person. I understand the distinction between private-property and possessions; that's what I was referring to as the biggest distinction between left anarchism (or if you'd prefer, anarchism) and right anarchism (or if you'd prefer, arch libertarianism). Which side of the fence one falls on seems to depend on one's particular philosophical views towards private property, which I attempted to illustrate with the thought experiment I described previously.
  - jahaja 12y ago
    "Anarchism literally means (in the original Greek) 'no ruler'; anarcho-capitalism fits that definition, no?" This is clearly an irrational sentiment, completely void of history, bordering dogmatism, and at the very least childish. It seems that ancaps, that want to keep the privileges but just do away with the redistribution of wealth, is really selective in their thinking. For some reason the full focus is always on direct force and how bad that is, externalities or indirect force caused by capital or property accumulation is played down - obviously because it doesn't fit the interest of the pro-property crowd. "If a person is born without enough land or capital to be self-sufficient, and all the land and capital in the world at their time of birth was already used by others, then giving them enough land or capital to be self-sufficient would necessarily (assuming it wasn't given voluntarily through charity) require direct force to take the land/capital of others to give to this person." This is an unlikely hypothetical scenario and not reflected in todays society. This is another instance of a dishonest way to argue. You argue for private-property as it's like in todays society where land is not scarce - in the sense of actual active usage. And your argument for this is in a hyphotetical scenario where all land is actually occupied. Furthermore, in a proper anarchist, going with this scenario, a society where all land is actually being cultivated or in various types of use; I'm pretty sure people would not need to work, and as such need to own their own land, as in such a society work is what people would want to abandon. Abondonment of work would of course be impossible in a ancap society where the propertyless would need to work for the propertied. Finally, your whole argument stems from the fact that you see private-property as some form of natural law where is not a privilege. This is just Orwellian, where owning more land than one can possibly, actively, use oneself is still regarded as a righteous possession rather than just privileged private-property upheld by some form of force. Private-property can't be sustained without some form of force. Even if that's for you ancaps is some kind of payed private militia or similar, it still needs to be upheld from people that would like to actually use the land for self-sufficiency. And no, to use the land by paying workers to use it for you is not using the land by oneself.

jahaja 12y ago

First of all, there's no such thing as right anarchism - if you by that means the so called, in america, libertarianism a.k.a anarco-capitalism - Anarchism is a path of Socialism. Private-property is against the most fundamental ideas of anarchism. This revisionism winds me up to no end. And no, simple argumentations doesn't require a complex response. Often that's just a bad excuse to cloud responses in a viel of complexity which requires more energy to interpret and reply to. A perfect example of this overcomplexification is this point regarding food produced by others and the indirect coercion of todays society of the propertyless. Either that or you're just missing the point - fair enough in that case. It's very plain to see and understand, I think, that a person today without property (or capital) is indirectly forced to rent out his or her labor, to try to overcomplexify this by ancap philosophical nonsense is just dishonest. The produced food isn't even the issue here, it's the politically decided and upheld privilege of private-property and in the end the ownership of the means of production. A proper non-forced choice would require that the person has enough land to be self-sufficent or enough capital to study or work for oneself. I would also advise you to read and understand the distinction between private-property and posessions that anarchism makes.

logicchains 12y ago
Anarchism literally means (in the original Greek) 'no ruler'; anarcho-capitalism fits that definition, no? It's impossible for people to communicate if they aren't both using the same definitions of particular words. It's not 'overcomplexification' to clearly define the terms used, it's a necessary step in having a non-nonsensical conversational interchange. In this case, the issue is over 'forced'. When you state "a person today without property (or capital) is indirectly forced to rent out his or her labor", you're referring to them being forced by circumstance, not by anyone actively setting out to deprive them of food. Whether or not to consider this (or anything else) a bad thing is a moral judgement. Moral judgements require philosophical analysis. I'm pointing out that, in the context of the viewpoint that only actively forcing people (i.e. do this or I'll hit you) is bad, what you describe as a 'non-forced' choice involves force against other parties, but the 'indirectly forced' choice doesn't. How? If a person is born without enough land or capital to be self-sufficient, and all the land and capital in the world at their time of birth was already used by others, then giving them enough land or capital to be self-sufficient would necessarily (assuming it wasn't given voluntarily through charity) require direct force to take the land/capital of others to give to this person. I understand the distinction between private-property and possessions; that's what I was referring to as the biggest distinction between left anarchism (or if you'd prefer, anarchism) and right anarchism (or if you'd prefer, arch libertarianism). Which side of the fence one falls on seems to depend on one's particular philosophical views towards private property, which I attempted to illustrate with the thought experiment I described previously.
- jahaja 12y ago
  "Anarchism literally means (in the original Greek) 'no ruler'; anarcho-capitalism fits that definition, no?" This is clearly an irrational sentiment, completely void of history, bordering dogmatism, and at the very least childish. It seems that ancaps, that want to keep the privileges but just do away with the redistribution of wealth, is really selective in their thinking. For some reason the full focus is always on direct force and how bad that is, externalities or indirect force caused by capital or property accumulation is played down - obviously because it doesn't fit the interest of the pro-property crowd. "If a person is born without enough land or capital to be self-sufficient, and all the land and capital in the world at their time of birth was already used by others, then giving them enough land or capital to be self-sufficient would necessarily (assuming it wasn't given voluntarily through charity) require direct force to take the land/capital of others to give to this person." This is an unlikely hypothetical scenario and not reflected in todays society. This is another instance of a dishonest way to argue. You argue for private-property as it's like in todays society where land is not scarce - in the sense of actual active usage. And your argument for this is in a hyphotetical scenario where all land is actually occupied. Furthermore, in a proper anarchist, going with this scenario, a society where all land is actually being cultivated or in various types of use; I'm pretty sure people would not need to work, and as such need to own their own land, as in such a society work is what people would want to abandon. Abondonment of work would of course be impossible in a ancap society where the propertyless would need to work for the propertied. Finally, your whole argument stems from the fact that you see private-property as some form of natural law where is not a privilege. This is just Orwellian, where owning more land than one can possibly, actively, use oneself is still regarded as a righteous possession rather than just privileged private-property upheld by some form of force. Private-property can't be sustained without some form of force. Even if that's for you ancaps is some kind of payed private militia or similar, it still needs to be upheld from people that would like to actually use the land for self-sufficiency. And no, to use the land by paying workers to use it for you is not using the land by oneself.