Libertarian and Liberal

[nino_savatte]

I don't see how the de facto (by use) concept of property advocated leads to anything like you imagine. What are you proposing? Absolutely no property? And how do you propose to remove *all* hierarchies?

I am not proposing anything. My understanding of anarcho-capitalism is that it favours unfettered capitalism. Within corporate structures, hierarchies exist and these would be projected onto society-at-large. Furthermore, the social dimension on what you describe as a strain of "anarchism" is absent or, rather, it insists that greater economic freedoms will lead to greater individual freedoms. I don't see how that is so.

Oh and didn't Filippo Tomaso Marinetti and his chums consider themselves to be "anarchists"? What sort of anarchist would claim that "War is the world's only hygiene"?

 

[Darios]

I am not proposing anything. My understanding of anarcho-capitalism is that it favours unfettered capitalism. Within corporate structures, hierarchies exist and these would be projected onto society-at-large. Furthermore, the social dimension on what you describe as a strain of "anarchism" is absent or, rather, it insists that greater economic freedoms will lead to greater individual freedoms. I don't see how that is so.

Wait - we appear to be at cross purposes here - I was asking for your views on mutualist anarchists, not anarcho-capitalists. What is your basic critique of mutualists that justifies you not considering them anarchists?

In response to what you said above regarding AC:

- what corporate structures exactly do you think would be able to form without a state?

- the question you raise regarding economic freedoms vis a vis individual freedoms is equally applicable to other strains of anarchism; unless you're claiming that individuals would not be substantively free in an anarchist society to work / produce / trade as they see fit?

- on the social dimension it isn't so much 'absent' as simply 'not prescribed' (and similarly, not proscribed either). The concern here, arising from the individualist thinkers is that with individual freedom comes a fear of collectivist thinking - in that collectivist ways of thinking and acting could quite easily become institutions in their own right, especially if imposed from the outset. (I found Le Guin's description of this happening quite interesting in the Dispossessed btw).

The foundation of conduct between individuals - for both miniarchists and an-caps - is to be found in the classical liberal doctrine of self-ownership, where each individual's life, liberty and property is respected. Note that none of this prevents, or even actively discourages the formation of social, even collectivist, organisations - the primary difference is that, unlike collectivist types of anarchism, it doesn't require them.

 

[Gmart]

This thread has had an extraordinarily high percentage of it devoted to arguing about the meaning of words. This is understandable, given that the thread started off precisely by questioning the meaning of some words. So fair enough, no foul.

But still, I would normally expect a thread of this nature to develop into discussion about the real meat of an issue, not what that meat is called.

I only mention it because this is something I see depressingly often in politics discussions amongst people that actually really do have something interesting to contribute and really do have some perspective and understanding to pass on. Why does it happen? Who CARES what you call these things? Seriously? Surely the underlying ideas are the point of the debate, not the name of the idea?

Personally speaking, it puts me off the discussion. I end up just thinking everybody involved is the worst kind of pedant (not the best kind of pedant, like me) and turning something else on instead. This is a real shame.

Anyway, there it is.

Only Nihilism works all the time, and that requires you to believe in nothing.

 

[Gmart]

Both these words seem to suggest believing in people. To me the people who DON'T believe in people usually go towards authoritarianism just through fear.