Libertarian Party Uk

[Blagsta]

Your previous arguement was relativist ie. meaning is relative to who uses it. You can't say I'm fucking about with language if you think that anybody can interpret words however they like to suit their cause. If you sincerely believed your relativism then you would accept my interpretation just as much as any other interpretation. But you don't. As I say, to say that a strike isn't a form of coercion is just a lie. It really is.

If you want to argue that you can approach discussion about class struggle from a god like neutral perspective, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. Your attempt to argue a "neutral" position on this, is dishonest as you're not neutral on this no one is. What you are doing is arguing the liberal idealogical position. At least have the guts to admit it.

 

[Knotted]

If you want to argue that you can approach discussion about class struggle from a god like neutral perspective, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. Your attempt to argue a "neutral" position on this, is dishonest as you're not neutral on this no one is. What you are doing is arguing the liberal idealogical position. At least have the guts to admit it.

What liberal ideological position? That coercion is necessary and should be championed by the working class? That abstract liberty sucks? If you called me a Tory your insult would have a tinge of credability.

 

[Blagsta]

What liberal ideological position? That coercion is necessary and should be championed by the working class? That abstract liberty sucks? If you called me a Tory your insult would have a tinge of credability.

Look - it's quite simple. Your view of what is and what isn't "coercion" is dependent on where you sit. From a liberal pov, wage labour isn't coercion, it's a free exchange. From an anarchist pov, it is coercion. From a liberal pov, striking is coercion. From an anarchist pov, it is resistance to coercion.

Now, you're trying to argue, supposedly from a "neutral" pov, that striking is coercion. There are no "neutral" pov on this. There is the dominant hegemonic view (which you are arguing) and there is a class struggle pov (which I am arguing). Trouble is, you think you can sit there in your ivory tower and see through this and be "neutral". You can't. It's one side or the other.

 

[Blagsta]

What liberal ideological position? That coercion is necessary and should be championed by the working class? That abstract liberty sucks? If you called me a Tory your insult would have a tinge of credability.

btw, I'd argue that militancy, anger, action etc should be championed by the working class. Problem is, you're trying to argue a specious point because you're clueless about anarchism and don't want to admit it.

Gutless.

 

[Knotted]

Look - it's quite simple. Your view of what is and what isn't "coercion" is dependent on where you sit.

No it isn't it depends on what "coercion" means.

From a liberal pov, wage labour isn't coercion, it's a free exchange.

Then they are wrong. And weasels to boot for mangling language.

From an anarchist pov, it is coercion.

Then the anarchist are right.

From a liberal pov, striking is coercion.

Then the liberals are right.

From an anarchist pov, it is resistance to coercion.

Then the anarchists are wrong. And weasels for mangling language.

Now, you're trying to argue, supposedly from a "neutral" pov, that striking is coercion. There are no "neutral" pov on this. There is the dominant hegemonic view (which you are arguing) and there is a class struggle pov (which I am arguing). Trouble is, you think you can sit there in your ivory tower and see through this and be "neutral". You can't. It's one side or the other.

This isn't a political question it is a semantic question.

 

[Blagsta]

whatever

 

[Knotted]

btw, I'd argue that militancy, anger, action etc should be championed by the working class. Problem is, you're trying to argue a specious point because you're clueless about anarchism and don't want to admit it.

Gutless.

Well you can't bring yourself to say that liberals are wrong when they say that wage labour isn't coercion. You can only say that it is their point of view and you have a different point of view. You don't dare criticise liberalism. You don't dare say the liberals are wrong. Why this limp wristed relativism?

 

[Blagsta]

Well you can't bring yourself to say that liberals are wrong when they say that wage labour isn't coercion. You can only say that it is their point of view and you have a different point of view. You don't dare criticise liberalism. You don't dare say the liberals are wrong. Why this limp wristed relativism?

*yawn*

 

[Knotted]

Opposing your own exploitation is not self defence? We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I said, "opposing exploitation..." I did not say "opposing your own exploitation..."

Anarchists would argue that opposing the exploitation of your class is also self defence. I thought you'd read the anarchist faq? All the arguments I'm using are in there.

Note that you did not make an argument for me to recognise. You misreprented me. I said nothing about your arguments. You are so dishonest that it looks like I'm going to have to quote back logs of old posts when dealing with you.

It's obvious from your posts! For you to be able to come up with "three references to self-defence in the FAQ" so quickly can only have been done by a pdf search. If you had actually read the thing, you would recognise the arguments I'm making about solidarity.

waits whil knotted searches the pdf for references to solidarity

OK I've had a chance to look at this again.

The only thing in the FAQ that even seems to equate solidarity with self-defence is this quote from a non-anarchist:

"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I want to appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured only when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a question of my own contentment, only of my own self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ." [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the legends, pp. 133-4]

In fact it is clear that this favours a very limited form of 'solidarity' if indeed it can be called 'solidarity' at all. It is only the promotion of happiness of people around you for personal security. It is a philosophy suited to a psychopath or a narcissist, indeed it is very close to Ayn Rand. I don't see any reason to insult anarchists by associating them with this sort of crap.

The FAQ insults the IWW when it stupidly associates the above with the slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all." Which is not an arguement about the need for the indivdual to support collective action but rather a sound trade union principle of protecting the individual whether or not they are in solidarity with you. If anything, the slogan discourages the criminally selfish from joining the union as it points out that the union will defend you anyway.

Anarchists do not suppose that opposing exploitation is always about self-defence. They do not even suppose that opposing exploitation is always about self-interest. This is because they are not mental. They recognise that people can make personal sacrifices for the good of all.

I should also note that the FAQ badly misinterprets the quotes from Malatesta and Goldman. Implying that they thought "solidarity and co-operation [they ignorantly don't make any distinction here] means treating others as equals". Neither was talking about equality. This part is particularly bizarre:

Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them.

This is clearly implying that equality is a pre-requisite for solidarity. This implies that solidarity with a trade union struggle where the union is run by a bureaucratic clique is not actually solidarty. Nowhere do they justify this strange point of view that they have foisted on anarchists.

The anarchist FAQ is really not very good at all.

 

[Blagsta]

You've managed to thoroughly read a document of over 500 pages (that's just part 1) overnight?

What was that about being honest?

Bye knotted. Have fun

 

[Knotted]

Some back log for this latest piece of dishonesty:

I'm reading it at the moment. I think it explains quite clearly what anarchists mean by "libertarian". Which bits are you having difficulty with?

Some minimal quoting taken out of context is what is confusing you. Maybe read the whole thing?

Notice that in the first instance Blagsta does not assume that I have not read the FAQ. He understands perfectly well that I have read it. He only assumes that I have not read it after I have done exactly what he asked. After asking for "which bits" he complains when I give him "bit" because it is "out of context". Notice that Blagsta does not give the context.

You're concentrating solely on negative freedoms. The anarchist position is that these negative freedoms don't mean very much without postive freedoms as well. The freedom to cross a picket line may be a liberty for the individual crossing it, but it's not not for the people who are striking. The conception of freedom you have is one based on abstract individualism. If you actually read anarchist theory, you'll see that it disagrees with this. Read the faq again, it's quite a good explanation, it'll correct your misconceptions.

Notice "read the FAQ again". Blagsta is quite prepared to believe I have read the FAQ. He understands that I have read it in the past. All this assuming that I have read it overnight is a lie.

Anarchists would argue that opposing the exploitation of your class is also self defence. I thought you'd read the anarchist faq? All the arguments I'm using are in there.

Again Blagsta says that he thought I had read the FAQ.

It's obvious from your posts! For you to be able to come up with "three references to self-defence in the FAQ" so quickly can only have been done by a pdf search. If you had actually read the thing, you would recognise the arguments I'm making about solidarity.

Notice Blagsta has shifted the ground. He now assumes that I am claiming to have just read the whole thing. Remember that he was asking me to "read it again".

When dealing with snakes this is what you have to do.
End of backlog

You've managed to thoroughly read a document of over 500 pages (that's just part 1) overnight?

What was that about being honest?

Bye knotted. Have fun

You actually expected me to read the whole thing before you answered any of my questions. Words fail me.

I have read it though. I read it about a year ago. I've read earlier versions about 10 years ago. Sorry that this concept of having already read something is so confusing.

 

[Knotted]

I've been reading a bit by the Sydney Libertarians. They seem to have nailed this question of the nature of anarchist 'libertarianism'. See in particular:
http://www.marxists.org/history/australia/libertarians/baker/without-tears.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/australia/libertarians/iverson/not-anarchist.htm

Its really good stuff aside from some odd Reichian moments. Consistent libertarianism. Their critique of moralism and ideology is excellent. Not that their politics are up to much.

Plus it shows that there is a tradition of non-anarchist libertarians that go back to the 1950's (though really I've no idea why anybody considers right wing libertarians such as Tucker and Spooner to be anarchists).

 

[Darios]

Positive rights are not demands. They are freedoms to do things.

You really don't understand the difference between negative and positive rights do you?

If you have a right to an education (a positive right) then someone is obliged to provide that education.

As for you rubbish about an all knowing collective? Pfffft.

It isn't my rubbish mate - its definitely yours. It's the piece de resistance of collectivist anarchists the world over when they're asked to get into nitty gritty details. No need to deal with difficult and thorny issues regarding property or organisational specifics as this will be solved - apparently - by the collective making the "right" decisions.

 

[Darios]

You're making shit up again. Please stop.

You're simply incapable of discussing certain points Blagsta. Kyser makes similar arguments below and you get similarly pwned there too.

Enjoy your anarcho-collective fantasy land where no one has to answer difficult questions or deal with some tough issues on the ground. The collective will take care of it. With magic.

 

[Darios]

Plus it shows that there is a tradition of non-anarchist libertarians that go back to the 1950's (though really I've no idea why anybody considers right wing libertarians such as Tucker and Spooner to be anarchists).

Oh Knotted, nothing stops some of these part-timers from selectively quoting ideological antecedents like Tucker and Spooner. It's particularly funny to see collectivists picking and choosing statements from Stirner to somehow support their ideology.

Have to say I do at least admire you for explicitly diverging from the likes of Tucker and Spooner; you're at least going to come out the other end ideologically consistent, unlike flip-floppers such as Blagsta. He's missed the target anyway - living in fear of us evil anarcho-caps and miniarchists "stealing" a word like Libertarianism. His real enemy is much closer to home, it lives within the warmth of his belly - swirling in his mixed up goody-bag of ideologies all given weight by historical canon of being associated with anarchism in some form or another.

There are so many different traditions and interpretations related to the anarchist cause - and it seems many of the "classic" thinkers (Goldman, Proudhon etc) seemed to be aware of it. Yet for the modern "anarchist" there is only one true path and way. It's a holy mystery to me - I 'm obviously not one of the faithful.

In most cases it seems British Anarchist's dogma is matched only by their utter uselessness.....

 

[8ball]

It's particularly funny to see collectivists picking and choosing statements from Stirner to somehow support their ideology.

Easy to be seduced by a pretty quote - I have a love-hate thing going on with the anarchist penchant for slogans . .

There are so many different traditions and interpretations related to the anarchist cause - and it seems many of the "classic" thinkers (Goldman, Proudhon etc) seemed to be aware of it. Yet for the modern "anarchist" there is only one true path and way. It's a holy mystery to me - I 'm obviously not one of the faithful.

Phew - I thought you were talking about me until I saw the double-quotes. Now you just need to clarify what an "anarchist" is and we'll be sorted.

In most cases it seems British Anarchist's dogma is matched only by their utter uselessness.....

Where is this capital B and A from? Is there some British Anarchist party I wasn't previously aware of?

 

[Blagsta]

You really don't understand the difference between negative and positive rights do you?

If you have a right to an education (a positive right) then someone is obliged to provide that education.

People educate each other. See, this is where your views fall apart Darios. You assume that people aren't social. My experience tells me different. History tells me different. No anarchists ever organised their own schools, oh no, not in Darios' world!

It isn't my rubbish mate - its definitely yours. It's the piece de resistance of collectivist anarchists the world over when they're asked to get into nitty gritty details. No need to deal with difficult and thorny issues regarding property or organisational specifics as this will be solved - apparently - by the collective making the "right" decisions.

No, no anarchist at all have ever written about or practiced democracy. It's all about the mystic collective. How right you are.

Jeeezus, is this the level of debate from the libertarian party now?

 

[Knotted]

Oh Knotted, nothing stops some of these part-timers from selectively quoting ideological antecedents like Tucker and Spooner. It's particularly funny to see collectivists picking and choosing statements from Stirner to somehow support their ideology.

Have to say I do at least admire you for explicitly diverging from the likes of Tucker and Spooner; you're at least going to come out the other end ideologically consistent, unlike flip-floppers such as Blagsta. He's missed the target anyway - living in fear of us evil anarcho-caps and miniarchists "stealing" a word like Libertarianism. His real enemy is much closer to home, it lives within the warmth of his belly - swirling in his mixed up goody-bag of ideologies all given weight by historical canon of being associated with anarchism in some form or another.

There are so many different traditions and interpretations related to the anarchist cause - and it seems many of the "classic" thinkers (Goldman, Proudhon etc) seemed to be aware of it. Yet for the modern "anarchist" there is only one true path and way. It's a holy mystery to me - I 'm obviously not one of the faithful.

In most cases it seems British Anarchist's dogma is matched only by their utter uselessness.....

You're muddled in exactly the same way as the anarchist FAQ is. You think it is ideology and similarity of ideas that define anarchism or libertarianism. It isn't. It's the relation of the anarchist/libertarian to the broader political and economic life of society. Tucker and Spooner had only ideological commitments to socialism, their actual politics was much closer to right wing libertarianism. The apparent contradiction here is merely to do with the fact that their economic theories were false.

 

[Gmart]

No, no anarchist at all have ever written about or practiced democracy. It's all about the mystic collective. How right you are.

Jeeezus, is this the level of debate from the libertarian party now?

Strange that Blagsta felt the need to dismiss calls for anarchists to specify by using such a straightforward slippery slope fallacy.

Certainly such issues as property, individual freedom, commerce and even economics are omitted by the 'anarchists' as their view of how the world should be, is far away from reality and such questions distract from their theoretical ideal, which they prefer.

Anarchism is such a transitory position anyway. That's not to say that less laws and decentralisation of power would not work, if set up well - but a position of no laws would simply lead to their creation, thus halting the position of anarchy and turning it into (at best) a liberal government. Often there is a certain aspect of authoritarianism within the 'anarchy' ranks but it depends on the trade off between freedom and control - whichever is their priority.

The Libertarian/Liberal Party always puts freedom first, above control so long as there is no identifiable victim. Conservatives tend to be the opposite. To quote Gladstone:

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.

 

[butchersapron]

You know that the Libertarian Parrty is not the Liberal Party right? The rest, well, it's the usual weirdo half-digested uninfomred stuff.

 

[Blagsta]

Strange that Blagsta felt the need to dismiss calls for anarchists to specify by using such a straightforward slippery slope fallacy.

Certainly such issues as property, individual freedom, commerce and even economics are omitted by the 'anarchists' as their view of how the world should be, is far away from reality and such questions distract from their theoretical ideal, which they prefer.

Anarchism is such a transitory position anyway. That's not to say that less laws and decentralisation of power would not work, if set up well - but a position of no laws would simply lead to their creation, thus halting the position of anarchy and turning it into (at best) a liberal government. Often there is a certain aspect of authoritarianism within the 'anarchy' ranks but it depends on the trade off between freedom and control - whichever is their priority.

The Libertarian/Liberal Party always puts freedom first, above control so long as there is no identifiable victim. Conservatives tend to be the opposite. To quote Gladstone:

Eh? What makes you think anarchism means no laws?

Btw, as butchers pointed out, the libertarian party are not the liberal party. They don't put freedom first for everyone, only for people with property. Hence them not actually being libertarian.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Eh? What makes you think anarchism means no laws?

Btw, as butchers pointed out, the libertarian party are not the liberal party. They don't put freedom first for everyone, only for people with property. Hence them not actually being libertarian.

People without property are free to starve to death. Bootstraps etc.

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe marthews is thinking of the liberaltarian party?

 

[Gmart]

Quick quote from the dictionary:

an⋅ar⋅chy
  /ˈænərki/ Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kee] – noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Origin:
1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an- 1 + arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y 3

Of course there is an emphasis is on a lack of ruler for most 'anarchists', but the moment any laws exist, then there will be people who have to accede to laws they don't agree with, which makes 'anarchists' the same as any other politician, with the same choice between conservatism and liberalism.

However it is fair to say that any lack of leader/ruler that we might temporarily have, would immediately lead to finding one.

A system of organisation is needed for modern life. So, for example, a legal system is there, and the premise for its existence is that without it the rich would take advantage of the poor.

As for the primacy of freedom for the propertied, that may well be true, but all the more reason to engage with political debate and create a realistic alternative rather than the 'anarchist' attempt to be different from the liberals.

And the fallacy remains Blagsta

 

[butchersapron]

Indedd it does marthews, dangling there under the motorway bridge, it's head being banged by every passing HGV until you get it.

 

[Blagsta]

Quick quote from the dictionary:


Of course there is an emphasis is on a lack of ruler for most 'anarchists', but the moment any laws exist, then there will be people who have to accede to laws they don't agree with, which makes 'anarchists' the same as any other politician, with the same choice between conservatism and liberalism.

However it is fair to say that any lack of leader/ruler that we might temporarily have, would immediately lead to finding one.

A system of organisation is needed for modern life. So, for example, a legal system is there, and the premise for its existence is that without it the rich would take advantage of the poor.

As for the primacy of freedom for the propertied, that may well be true, but all the more reason to engage with political debate and create a realistic alternative rather than the 'anarchist' attempt to be different from the liberals.

And the fallacy remains Blagsta

Haven't we been here before? Discussed the uselessness of using a dictionary to understand political theory?

One of the main concepts of anarchism is for society to be organised from the bottom up. Workers would vote on decisions and delegate people, who would be recallable, to carry out democratically decided decisions. Power would be delegated upward. Laws would be decided by the people affected by them. The main centres of power would be workplaces and communities. Laws would exist, but they would be truly democratic.

btw, please buy some books on basic political theories and defintions. It will make this a load easier.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is this the third or the fourth thread on which GMart has pulled out his dictionary definition of "anarchy"?

Should I even bother, for a third or fourth time, to point out that "anarchy" and "anarchism" are not synonymous?

 

[butchersapron]

nope. have a laugh at early QT on BBC1

 

[Gmart]

You can all ignore the generally accepted definition of anarchy as much as you like. It is a free world.

Anarchy is a transitory position of change after a breakdown of control, while a new form of control is devised. Certainly a principle of subsidiarity is logical, which makes all 'anarchists' pro-EU; but there will always be laws which people disagree with, but have to adhere to anyway.

Sure you can concentrate on avoiding coercion emphasising the need for laws created locally, but sadly the world is not like that anymore (if it ever was!). Now, if there are different laws in different areas then people/companies know about them and take advantage of them.

To quote from the anarchist faq's:

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

Unfortunately that means that they are not 'anarchists' but just a political party which believes in local determination (while ignoring the globalised world we have).

Sure, no one wants oppression, but ALL the parties state their agreement with this. I would suggest that these self styled 'anarchists' should just decide whether they would like to trust the people (Liberalism) or not (Conservatism), as THAT is the key belief difference.

Note how at no point do they actually engage with the real issues. With BA on ignore I can only guess at the insults, while VP complains that he has gone thru this before though he has not. What they are actually doing is avoiding discussion about the difficult issues such as the market, property, the EU etc. While at the same time derailing a thread about Libertarianism which they have no interest in.

Start again might seem tempting, but we have to start from where we are. People are happy with 70% home ownership and so refusing to state one's policy, or worse, to have a policy which this majority will not go along with would be ludicrous. Libertarianism may seem like it is giving up the fight against oppression but actually it is accepting that having more and more laws is NOT the way forward. They have the principle of trusting the population in the Liberal way Gladstone describes. The Conservatives (both the anarchist version and the elitist one) generally DON'T believe in the people and continually try to control them with more and more laws.

Libertarians recognise the uselessness of this to their credit. In fact their manifesto has a lot of thoughtful policies.

 

[Blagsta]

So you quote something which contradicts your view, yet still persist in your view?

That's quite weird y'know.