Forums of the Libertarian Left

manbear2pig wrote:How is anarchism going to happen without a wholesale change in attitudes from everyone everywhere?...

It's not. That is why it is unrealistic to think that such an all encompassing nature will exist in our lifetime.

manbear2pig wrote:What I mean to say is that excluding people from land is itself coercive, and therefore the burden of justification falls upon the would-be owner. If this claim of exclusive ownership deprives others of the opportunity to live and work independently, it is null and void, for the reasons I have suggested. I realize you and I probably disagree on this, but it is at least worth considering, as I'm not the first person to come to this conclusion.

I realize that - however for me to simply inhabit a space excludes others from the space - so based on this basic principal the simple act of living is coercive under this philosophy. Since you have no control over your incarnation - you could not be held as liable. I have read rebuttals to this idea and all subjectively give some amount of property which is equitable. Again as in all "solutions" there always is a standard which determines what is just - and hence an authority.

Perhaps I misunderstand what exactly is being argued here but my take is that the property ownership rules you are advocating would justify the control of people's productive lives and access to the earth and resources by an elite class. That, I consider subjection. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that, I think, is where it would lead to.

I'm not advocating anything - and that is the problem with discussions - I am not PROMOTING any system over another system because I think the entire IDEA of a system is incorrect so long as it is non-voluntary. If someone is dumb enough to not evolve out of being tribalism then you are self selecting for natural selection. On a philosophical scale it would be safe to say I am anti-tribal which means the thing which makes us cooperate also makes us war, coerce and kill. Sadly - there are not enough non-tribalists out there because tribes end up killing us for not joining.

Well, I'm not against the idea of trying to solve problems per se. But I think the real issue is that of property rules - under what circumstances people can be violently excluded from land and resources. I guess the debate on this thread has not been so much "What will people decide to do?" but rather "What is just?" We are apparently starting from different premises on this, but I have hopefully laid out some of the starting-points where folks like Neverfox, myself, and several other LLs are coming from.

Exactly - most people want to "fix the problem." What most are actually doing however is just creating a new system under which you think that the rules are going to be just and that people will act accordingly. What I am saying however is that under no circumstances will this be true. Mutualism and all other "isms" to include anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-in-absurdism and anarcho-in-infinitism will in the long run turn tribal and grow into a state. Therefore no amount of "doing" or trying to create new ways of organizing ourselves will solve any of these problems.

I don't have any answers right now, however I know that the communities which should be on the right track don't seem to be. I am however trying to find an answer and I think it will come from either: ending the human desire to organize which will end the evolutionary trait of tribalism, or the mind evolving past dunbar's number such that it encompasses the entirety of the race. What got us here - wont get us there.

It's not. That is why it is unrealistic to think that such an all encompassing nature will exist in our lifetime.

I realize that - however for me to simply inhabit a space excludes others from the space - so based on this basic principal the simple act of living is coercive under this philosophy. Since you have no control over your incarnation - you could not be held as liable. I have read rebuttals to this idea and all subjectively give some amount of property which is equitable. Again as in all "solutions" there always is a standard which determines what is just - and hence an authority.

Yes, I understand that, hence I say the burden of proof is on the would-be owner, not that all claims of ownership are illegitimate. I don't think anyone would disagree that one is justified in having exclusive "ownership" over the cubic space in which one is located , and in plenty more besides. The only "authority" I advocate in determining the limit of legitimate property is whatever you can get the majority of people in the area to agree to. amirite?

Exactly - most people want to "fix the problem." What most are actually doing however is just creating a new system under which you think that the rules are going to be just and that people will act accordingly. What I am saying however is that under no circumstances will this be true.

Huh? It's not necessary to create an "-ism". All we're doing is discussing how a free society would likely work.

Mutualism and all other "isms" to include anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-in-absurdism and anarcho-in-infinitism will in the long run turn tribal and grow into a state. Therefore no amount of "doing" or trying to create new ways of organizing ourselves will solve any of these problems.

I don't have any answers right now, however I know that the communities which should be on the right track don't seem to be. I am however trying to find an answer and I think it will come from either: ending the human desire to organize which will end the evolutionary trait of tribalism, or the mind evolving past dunbar's number such that it encompasses the entirety of the race. What got us here - wont get us there.

??? Ok...so this is completely different from what the debate was earlier ...so what are you advocating? I think a stateless society is within our grasp, if the right actions are taken.

Well, his argument is very simple: no Anarchist system can work because they're all tribal (equating small communities with tribalism, I guess, which is about as instructive as saying that a small town is a tribe), therefore they would become states (notwithstanding the sociological evidence of many stable stateless tribal systems, which I guess he doesn't know about or doesn't care about), therefore we need to change human nature (how? I dunno, just wave your hands or something) so utopia can come true.

Maybe Gob Bluth can expand the human mind to encompass a number of people greater than Dunbar's Number.

AndrewKemendo wrote:

manbear2pig wrote:How is anarchism going to happen without a wholesale change in attitudes from everyone everywhere?...

It's not. That is why it is unrealistic to think that such an all encompassing nature will exist in our lifetime.

Let's try reframing things a little. "Anarchism" is a broad, internally diverse tradition, rather than an endstate, and it "happens" through our collective muddling towards (a/political, depending on your terminological tastes) "anarchy." A number of important varieties of anarchism have taken the impossibility of instituting that "anarchy" in some final form as a central assumption. As a result, the "system" or "ism" represented by those currents within anarchism is going to be rather different from a dogma or credo.

manbear2pig wrote:What I mean to say is that excluding people from land is itself coercive, and therefore the burden of justification falls upon the would-be owner. If this claim of exclusive ownership deprives others of the opportunity to live and work independently, it is null and void, for the reasons I have suggested. I realize you and I probably disagree on this, but it is at least worth considering, as I'm not the first person to come to this conclusion.

I realize that - however for me to simply inhabit a space excludes others from the space - so based on this basic principal the simple act of living is coercive under this philosophy. Since you have no control over your incarnation - you could not be held as liable. I have read rebuttals to this idea and all subjectively give some amount of property which is equitable. Again as in all "solutions" there always is a standard which determines what is just - and hence an authority.

Since the question of standards or criteria of justice has actually been a hotly debated issue at various points in the anarchist tradition, this critique seems simply to misfire. I can actually think of very few, if any, anarchist proposals which "give some amount of land," whether "subjectively" or otherwise, which it is just or equitable to occupy. Virtually all anarchist land-use systems seem relatively uncertain in this regard, falling back on standards like the Lockean "enough and as good" or "occupancy and use." The "living is coercive" rebuttal, which might contain some useful, hard truth in other contexts, doesn't seem to come any closer to its target. It is possible, under conditions of much greater land-scarcity than have ever existed for humans, that the simple fact of existing and occupying space might impose limitations on the very existence of others that we might call "coercive" in some fairly abstract way. But that seems like a fairly distant possibility, while we have a whole history to examine of actual exclusions from homes, however humble, from arable land and/or its products, from clean air and water, etc., all justified by systems of property backed by the real coercive force of governmental authority. The mainstream anarchist tradition traces itself back to a critique of property systems and systems of governmental authority which quite explicitly took on "isms" and systematic thinking of an absolutist character, and understood social change and progress in terms of rough and ready balancings and approximations which could not provide themselves with a criterion in individual cases. Radicals and activists who stay true to that part of the tradition are forced to advance on their own "authority," to take responsibility for their actions and positions.

Andrew, you seem dead-set on projecting a particular kind of "tribalism" onto other people, while you admit that you have no developed position of your own, apart from opposition to a range of positions you treat reductively according to a supposed "evolutionary trait." But this seems to be a kind of collectivization in the realm of thought that is largely your own doing.

I don't disagree that I falter and fail at being free from bias. I hold myself to the same standard and will flagellate when I find myself falling into the standard traps. I have tried recently to step out of the idea of holding a static view on anarchism because the debate with neverfox made me think that we are both blindfolded and describing the elephant.

I agree that as a credo and dogma it fails, which is part of my point. I also agree that there is no consensus on land holding as coercive. The philosophy of anarchism is like the catholic church - many different sects which hold slightly different beliefs.

But just as you said - the anarchist tradition has always assaulted isms, and I think when we (and I lump myself into this category because I have done it) try and devise solutions to problems of coercion in all encompassing terms (in which it is necessary that the majority understand the solution) then we fall victim to the same collectivist mindsets. Few oligarchs became tyrannous out of unabashed "evil" and "greed," most felt that their actions would lead to a better more prosperous future.

What I see in the various forms of anarchisms are prescriptive definitions of what is just and equitable. I also see and admit to advocating "solutions" which still fall within the standard way of doing things eg: political movements, direct action, violence, communes, islands etc... Each particular adherent to that form of anarchism understands that without ubiquitous understanding, coercive collectives will form. Therefore I am tempted to believe that, since it is an impossibility for all to agree, there will be no lasting peace without a significant "evolution" if you will. I am suggesting this as a topic of debate rather than a solution and I failed to make that clear.

We can as you said look at the history of the world as it relates to coercive powers and how individuals have overcome them. Sadly, however history always repeats itself, generally only making problems and their "solutions" bigger and longer. If there is anything however that has cycled over history, it is man without organization, organizing other men for the "good," coercively growing in size, becoming unsustainable and either collapsing, being conquered or having the conquered revolt - which just starts the cycle back over again. I have yet to see a lasting example of no coercive monopoly which were not either overrun, or self organized and destroyed themselves like the Americans. These are pretty good examples of what I mean. The ones that are still working I think are fantastic but are feeble at best in my view.

I was once practical in my ideas and thought that educating and fighting for liberty was the way to a satisfactory outcome but I always ran into stumbling blocks, such as a residual population of coercers which indicated to me that "it's not going to last." While we all realize at some point that nothing is going to last, I think that it is up to us to have the audacity to think bigger than that and make that next big leap of faith (as much as it pains me to say that) and try and think of how we can make it last - however it is going to take something completely different to get us there. I dont know what that is - but I have been reading this stuff for the past year:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
http://lesswrong.com/

If the best we can hope for is to claw our way to liberty only to know it will be squandered or conquered in 3 or 4 generations then all I see is another loop in the cycle. What about breaking the cycle completely? Our limitations to achieving a coercion free existence are based on two things: scarcity of resources and our own natural abilities as a species. Perhaps, but I am just guessing, if we can overcome one of these then it might break the cycle. I dunno, its a thought.

Market Anarchist ...I'm closet to individualist anarchist on the list. Basically a Benjamin Tucker type that rejects the labor theory of value.

I chose 'other' because 1) not believing in any sorts of rights (or wrongs) and having virtually no interest or control of the majority of the human race, political theory is at most of academic interest to me and 2) because the closest I come to having opinions in political philosophy I tend towards a sort of anti-Enlightenment nihilistic pluralism.

RoyceChristian wrote:

Just curious: what disagreements do you have with anarcho-capitalism?

Mainly things like self ownership -- it's a rather simplistic way of explaining property, freedom and opposition to the state.

What is simplistic about self-ownership. (Simple is not the same as simplistic)

Then there's the arrogance of some Anarcho-Capitalists. Of course not all are arrogant, but I've noticed that a certain know-it-all streak exists amongst some groups of Anarcho-Capitalists.

Hey, we can't help being the best at everything!

Unless I am mistaken, I also have a problem with their rejection of 'common property' and staunch support of hard propertarianism that doesn't allow for communal ownership, even when voluntary.

Which anarcho-capitalists are you referring to on this? Walter Block has explicitly said that libertarianism isn't antisocialism, only anti-coercive socialism. The Tannehills, in The Market For Liberty said that voluntary communalism was fine and something people had a right to engage in. David Friedman says likewise. I can't think of any an-cap that would say that voluntary communal arrangements were not fine. Bruce Benson even basically argues that some community schemes and neighbourhood schemes are likely to happen absent a state, because they are an easy way to ensure the provision of certain public goods.

Even the defence of corporations is somewhat of a put off.

Assuming anarcho-capitalists support corporations. Again, in The Machinery of Freedom David Friedman rejects them in favour of agoric arrangements.

Lastly, you have Anarcho-Capitalisms lack of any method to achieve a stateless society, with the exception of education. Some Anarcho-Capitalists would prefer to debate online, which I would not normally have a problem with except that they refuse to eve entertain the notion of getting involved in some form of activism.

Really? Aren't their anarcho-capitalists in the LP, in the Free State Project, and othe rthings, for instance?

All your criticisms seem to be strawmen.

Francois Tremblay wrote:Anyone who supports capitalism, even some imaginary ideal one... it's hard to swallow.

What o you mean by "capitalism"?

Richard_A_Garner wrote:

Francois Tremblay wrote:Anyone who supports capitalism, even some imaginary ideal one... it's hard to swallow.

What o you mean by "capitalism"?

i presume he's referring to what we have now, which of course anarcho-capitalists can say is state capitalism which is true but in ordinary people's eyes what we have now is capitalism with a little wealth redistibution so will assume anarcho-capitalism is a return to the "dark satanic mills" of the "laissez faire" era.

I can't think of any an-cap that would say that voluntary communal arrangements were not fine.

Communal has a dual meaning as does public.

Do you mean collective (joint ownership) or in common (individual equal)?

Noleaders wrote:

Richard_A_Garner wrote:

Francois Tremblay wrote:Anyone who supports capitalism, even some imaginary ideal one... it's hard to swallow.

What o you mean by "capitalism"?

i presume he's referring to what we have now, which of course anarcho-capitalists can say is state capitalism

I imagine so, and, yes, I would not call the present economy capitalist.

which is true but in ordinary people's eyes what we have now is capitalism with a little wealth redistibution so will assume anarcho-capitalism is a return to the "dark satanic mills" of the "laissez faire" era.[/quote]

Quite, but this raises the problem Rod Long observed in his lecture on Rothbard's Left and Right:

Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. " In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term.

Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

For these reasons Rod has recided that he will not call himself a capitalist. But they seem to be similar reasons as to why some anarchists call themselves Voluntaryists (despite Auberon Herbert believing in a minimal state). Just as some anarchists continue calling themselves anarchists despite public confusion on the term, why not call oneself a capitalist despite public confusion on the term, and explain that a free market means no favouritism to big business?

JosiahWarren wrote:

I can't think of any an-cap that would say that voluntary communal arrangements were not fine.

Communal has a dual meaning as does public.

Do you mean collective (joint ownership) or in common (individual equal)?

The objection I was responding too mentioned both communal and common ownership and did not differentiate between the two, though I would. I would say that common ownership is not really any ownership, but when something remains "in the commons" usable by everybody, though not always simultaneously. Roderick Long, and others, have provided arguments as to why this is compatible with the traditional Lockean form of libertarianism.

Communal, collective, or joint ownership, on the other hand, means that specifiable individuals own something to the exclusion of other individuals. If a club of people decide they are going to homestead some land together, for instance, the land becomes their collective property. Likewise, I can agree to make somebody else the joint owner of my house. There is nothing wrong with any of these options.

I would say that common ownership is not really any ownership, but when something remains "in the commons" usable by everybody, though not always simultaneously.

It is individual equal ownership rights. I am free to use without getting prior permission so long as my use does not infringe on anyone else's equal right to the same.

Collective rights are joint rights. I need to get permission prior to use from ALL the other joint owners (consensus) who can set terms and conditions.

For these reasons Rod has recided that he will not call himself a capitalist. But they seem to be similar reasons as to why some anarchists call themselves Voluntaryists (despite Auberon Herbert believing in a minimal state). Just as some anarchists continue calling themselves anarchists despite public confusion on the term, why not call oneself a capitalist despite public confusion on the term, and explain that a free market means no favouritism to big business?

Cos the term free market anti capitalist is more fun? Its also useful (well....) when taking to anarcho-socialists cos if you say capitalist they will act as though you have sex slaves in your basement whereas some (well....) will hear you out if you just say free market.

On the other hand adding together two of the most hated philosophies, laissez faire capitalism and anarchism, and saying thats what i believe in does sound fun


I also think there will be more profit-sharing and workers control (worker ownership) in a free market so in that sense i qualify as a socialist.

as to why this is compatible with the traditional Lockean form of libertarianism.

Hah, almost everything Locke wrote in his Two Treatises of Government is obviously fallacious, so this isn't a great asset. That's like using Adam Smith's confused observations to demonstrate the efficacy of markets.

JosiahWarren wrote:

I would say that common ownership is not really any ownership, but when something remains "in the commons" usable by everybody, though not always simultaneously.

It is individual equal ownership rights. I am free to use without getting prior permission so long as my use does not infringe on anyone else's equal right to the same.

Collective rights are joint rights. I need to get permission prior to use from ALL the other joint owners (consensus) who can set terms and conditions.

Right, and both those are permissable. I don't see why an anarcho-capitalist need be opposed to either.

Noleaders wrote:

For these reasons Rod has recided that he will not call himself a capitalist. But they seem to be similar reasons as to why some anarchists call themselves Voluntaryists (despite Auberon Herbert believing in a minimal state). Just as some anarchists continue calling themselves anarchists despite public confusion on the term, why not call oneself a capitalist despite public confusion on the term, and explain that a free market means no favouritism to big business?

Cos the term free market anti capitalist is more fun? Its also useful (well....) when taking to anarcho-socialists cos if you say capitalist they will act as though you have sex slaves in your basement whereas some (well....) will hear you out if you just say free market.

On the other hand adding together two of the most hated philosophies, laissez faire capitalism and anarchism, and saying thats what i believe in does sound fun


I also think there will be more profit-sharing and workers control (worker ownership) in a free market so in that sense i qualify as a socialist.

That's true; in some way, how one chooses to labels oneself may depends the company one is in.

Richard_A_Garner wrote:

JosiahWarren wrote:

I would say that common ownership is not really any ownership, but when something remains "in the commons" usable by everybody, though not always simultaneously.

It is individual equal ownership rights. I am free to use without getting prior permission so long as my use does not infringe on anyone else's equal right to the same.

Collective rights are joint rights. I need to get permission prior to use from ALL the other joint owners (consensus) who can set terms and conditions.

Right, and both those are permissable. I don't see why an anarcho-capitalist need be opposed to either.

The problem occurs with the obliteration of land - as part of the natural commons - as a separate and distinct factor of production by the neo-classicals. According to them it is not in the mix unless and until labor is applied where it is transformed into capital.

The proviso Lockean wing of the left-libertarian movement has a big problem with this...

JosiahWarren wrote:The problem occurs with the obliteration of land - as part of the natural commons - as a separate and distinct factor of production by the neo-classicals. According to them it is not in the mix unless and until labor is applied where it is transformed into capital.

The proviso Lockean wing of the left-libertarian movement has a big problem with this...

I know. But there are two responses I can think of off hand. The first is that, insofar as no rights are violated, no injustice has occurred. And because the land was unowned, nobody had any rights over it, so no rights could be violated.

Another, perhaps more plausible, is Nozick's answer that the appropriation meets Locke's proviso if it doesn't worsen anybody's position compared to how they would have been had the land remained in common.

insofar as no rights are violated, no injustice has occurred. And because the land was unowned, nobody had any rights over it, so no rights could be violated.

It wasn't "unowned". It was owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.

The private enclosure violates the absolute rights of the excluded to the fruits of their labor because the resulting economic rent that occurs beyond Locke's proviso is nothing more than a tax on the excluded's labor.

JosiahWarren wrote:

insofar as no rights are violated, no injustice has occurred. And because the land was unowned, nobody had any rights over it, so no rights could be violated.

It was owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.

The private enclosure violates the absolute rights of the excluded to the fruits of their labor because the resulting economic rent that occurs is nothing more than a tax on the excluded's labor.

No, it was unowned, not owned by anybody. That is why access didn't violate rights. Any access rights are property rights, because all rights are property rights. By definition, then, an unowned patch of land is land to which nobody has any access rights. They have a hohfeldian liberty to use the land, but it is, resorting to Hartian terminology, a naked as opposed to a vested liberty.

Any access rights are property rights, because all rights are property rights.

Individual equal access rights are common property rights.

By definition, then, an unowned patch of land is land to which nobody has any access rights.

Everyone has an equal access right to all land (locations) as they are not the product of human labor (labor-based property) but rather they are law-based property to exclude resulting from privilege.

Private enclosure is just so long as they leave enough and as good in common for others.

JosiahWarren wrote:

Any access rights are property rights, because all rights are property rights.

Individual equal access rights are common property rights.

I can't see how these rights would be compossible with each other. One person excercising his would lead to another being prevented from excercising his.

By definition, then, an unowned patch of land is land to which nobody has any access rights.

Everyone has an equal access right to all land (locations) as they are not the product of human labor (labor-based property) but rather they are law-based property to exclude resulting from privilege.

Private enclosure is just so long as they leave enough and as good in common for others.

Which is tantamount to saying no apropriation is just.

One person excercising his would lead to another being prevented from excercising his.

Right. And in the case of land, where two people can't locate in the same spot at the same time, one just needs to compensate those excluded who are in proximity and forced to an inferior location by your unjust exclusion.

Which is tantamount to saying no apropriation is just.

It is unjust because you have harmed others by forcing them to less desirable locations. The amount of harm is calculated by the amount of economic rent attached to the location in question.

Thus, simple justice is served by requiring the sharing of the economic rent so everyone's right of self-ownership remains intact.