I agree Chris. When I first became an ancap in 1988 I was very absolutist
(and I didn't have as many friends either).
Over the years I've relaxed a bit and consider my idealism a good compass,
but I won't allow a compass to walk me over any cliffs.
When I truly respect a person I try to learn from them even when they
contradict what I believe.
It's easy to find differences among people but I've come to believe that
most people have a lot more in common than they realize.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Chris Pacia <ctpacia@???> wrote:

> Hey Amir,
>
> I would identify as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist. But I think you
> will find varying positions among people who identify as such. Some are
> absolutists. Some aren't.
>
> If I had to identity one philosopher that I agree with the most it would
> be Michael Huemer, who is not an absolutist but who nevertheless comes to a
> fairly common sense approach to dealing with some of the thornier issues.
>
> If you have time I would definitely give his 'The problem of political
> authority' a read.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1137281650?pc_redir=1408855405&robot_redir=1
>
> He also provides a very coherent sketch of how an anarchist society would
> function which would likely answer some of your other questions.
>
> -Chris
> On Aug 28, 2014 10:30 PM, "Amir Taaki" <genjix@???> wrote:
>
>> I was reading Wikipedia and normally I'm not into this ideology stuff
>> but I found some really interesting stuff. I was trying to understand
>> what anarcho-communism is about and whether it was voluntary. For me it
>> seems like you have some central assemblies where resources from
>> individuals flow to be redistributed via democratic decision making
>> according to the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability,
>> to each according to his need".
>>
>> As someone who values individuals, and wants to see a society based on
>> merit where leaders can strike it out, I don't like democracy and I
>> don't like collective decision making as always the consensus of the
>> majority is to oppose progress and normalise anything different.
>>
>> The idea of communist worker councils oppressing the rich classes,
>> taking the power to guide the economy is very much rooted in the times
>> of industrialisation where a poor rural Russia needed to industrialise.
>>

>>   "While Kollontai was initially drawn to the populist ideas of
>>    a restructuring of society based upon the peasant commune,
>>    effective advocates of such theories in the last decade of the
>>    19th century were few.[11] Marxism, with its emphasis on the
>>    enlightenment of factory workers, the revolutionary seizure of
>>    power, and the construction of modern industrial society, held
>>    sway with Kollontai as with so many of her peers of Russia's
>>    radical intelligentsia."

>>
>> So this is where it gets interesting. I'm reading about market
>> anarchism, which I know is something people have called me as well as
>> being labelled voluntarist. I like the Proudhon and Lysander Spooner too.
>>
>> There's a section called "Left-wing market anarchism":
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Left-wing_market_anarchism
>> and the first paragraph in, is the stuff I already know but the rest is
>> veeeerry interesting. I'm surprised at how much the ideas expressed
>> there are the same as my own. Like I go on, and there's many things I
>> thought were unique to my political beliefs.
>>
>> > proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal
>> > ideas of self-ownership and free markets
>> yep already knew this, I like self-ownership a lot.
>>
>> >taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support strongly
>> > anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, ...
>> yep this is what I thought of market anarchism.
>>
>> > pro-labor positions in economics
>> that's new to me. My economics do take a view with empowering the
>> disempowered in an open economy so that self-liberation and
>> self-emancipation are available to all.
>>
>> > anti-imperialism in foreign policy;
>> no borders right
>>
>> > This strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the
>> > mutualist economics conceptualized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
>> > American individualist anarchism, or in a left-wing interpretation
>> > or extension of the thought of Murray Rothbard.
>> I pretty much agree with all those ideas.
>>
>> > Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result
>> > from the use of force, and especially state power, to steal and
>> > engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges
>> This is my main argument for why we need markets. The system is rigged
>> through printing money, force and a rigged democracy.
>>
>> > They judge that, in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges
>> > secured by the state will be absent, and injustices perpetrated
>> > or tolerated by the state can be rectified. Thus, they conclude
>> > that, with state interference eliminated, it will be possible to
>> > achieve "socialist ends by market means."
>> Wow, I definitely want to achieve socialist ends by market means. If we
>> can form cooperatives that allow people to live cheaply and freely, to
>> pool money for things like costly cancer treatment or insurance, then we
>> have no need for intermediaries and we can make an economy that works
>> for ourselves. This is why the market is so powerful because it gives
>> you the ability to wield it for whatever objectives, and then the
>> effectiveness (in a "free open" market which values merit) is tested.
>> It's by no means perfect, but it's a much more fun way to live, and
>> that's the only way to unlock liberty.
>>
>> > Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses
>> yes, become the boss. Take back your work.
>> > support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property
>> let me get back to u on this one
>> > prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory
>> > restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised.
>> they split up the electromagnetic spectrum and sell it to corporations.
>> Part of that spectrum (in the middle) is visible light. Can you imagine
>> selling the license for emitting a shade of red? So ridiculous, and
>> that's why we have a crap monopolised telecom infrastructure- they
>> control the airwaves.
>> > They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by
>> > highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood
>> > of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion
>> I've been reading Assange's Google book, page 25 paragraphs 2-3 are a
>> good read for a greater enunciation of this.
>> > doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative"
>> > in the absence of government manipulation.
>> I don't want a world of privatised slaves. I want everyone to be an
>> entrepreneur and to own their work.
>> > Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics
>> I don't vote. It's a waste of time and a silly game.
>> > They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of
>> > working around the state.
>> So much this!! This is definitely my strategy.
>> > that market anarchists can and should call themselves "socialists."
>> I would call myself socialist.
>>
>> Now about anarcho-capitalism:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
>> I get many of the ideas, and I realise there are many variants which I
>> strongly associate with many of the traits. Also I feel a commonality
>> with many people who associate as anarcho-capitalist through their values.
>> However I don't understand a few things. Is this philosophy dealing in
>> absolutes? Is it always wrong to steal someone's property like a bag of
>> rice when you're starving? Is it more wrong to steal from a big
>> supermarket than an individual? Is it right to steal from the
>> government? How about a morally reprehensible individual? Or a
>> corporation? Or is the private property thing more of a steering
>> guideline- that we should seek to protect private property.
>>
>> How is private property linked to use? For instance, many amazing or
>> valuable places on earth or certain resources have been taken by power
>> groups for nefarious ends. For instance DeBeers uses its influence to
>> further encroach its monopoly and rig the market to drive out
>> competitors. On an earth that had no borders or lines, who is to say
>> this millionaire guy has the right to buy an entire river or beach for
>> his own private mention, and then use force to prevent my use of that
>> natural unused geography. Is that really ethical?
>>
>> I think Bitcoin is interesting as many of the things that ancaps are
>> striving for can now be done through blockchain & crypto technologies
>> without the need for private courts, law enforcement and security
>> services. I'm strongly of the view that the more we can live without
>> needing police and judges in a society, the better we will be.
>>
>> How do anarcho capitalists view things like copying bytes of a movie or
>> jumping train barriers which do not deprive people of the movie or a
>> train ride?
>> I think maybe the situation in the relatively young US is different to
>> the older aristocratic Europe. Here we have the situation like the Duke
>> of Westminster who owns the best land and properties around England and
>> London, and is the 2nd richest man in the UK. He's a big supporter of
>> royalty and the military.
>> He is basically rich from being a rentier.
>> Would we be wrong for violating his property? How about if we made good
>> use of his buildings putting them to productive use?
>>
>> My questions fall into:
>> * Does anarcho-capitalism deal with moral absolutes?
>> * How widely can you interpret aggression against property?
>> * When is it ethical to violate private property?
>> * Who enforces all of this? Is it private militaries and mafias?
>> * How does geography play in this? Not all land is equal, and capture of
>> land can be a self fulfilling advantage, especially with natural
>> resources like water or energy.
>> * Why is there such a huge emphasis on private organisations, and no
>> discussion about cooperatives or mutualism (normally a cornerstone of
>> anarchism)?
>> * What is the discussion around our individual action? In terms of what
>> values we want to promote, and how that informs our strategy.
>> * What if the voluntary market disagrees with defence of private
>> property? Which takes precedence?
>>
>> > Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just,
>> > and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property
>> > is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original
>> > appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
>>
>> This is indeed correct.
>>
>> > The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership,
>> > which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.
>>
>> Is this antithetical to the concept of anarchism?
>>
>> From 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia article on Anarchism:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>> > As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many
>> > currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed
>> > body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead
>> > fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.
>>
>> I feel like having an axiomatic and universal basis for your philosophy
>> is a dogmatic way of thinking which leads to fixed doctrine.
>>
>> > This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by
>> > a person implies his right to use and transform these places and
>> > goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not
>> > change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and
>> > goods originally **appropriated** by another person.
>>
>> goes on further:
>>
>> > According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor,
>> > therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely
>> > claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by using land
>> > ...
>> > Rothbard argues that the resource need not continue to be used in
>> > order for it to be the person's property
>> > ...
>> > "His labor has been irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land
>> > is therefore his or his assigns' in perpetuity."
>>
>> > He believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work
>> > on under the "homestead principle"
>> > He proposes that businesses who receive at least 50% of their
>> > funding from the state be confiscated by the workers.
>>
>> Does that mean we should re-appropriate businesses to varying degrees
>> based on how much they benefit from the state?
>>
>> > Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail
>> > over wage labor.
>>
>> This is what I strive for generally, but with a lot of this stuff
>> (especially around contracts), it's cool but seems a bit wishful
>> thinking in places that someone people will organise this way because of
>> these rational principles... when for me I kind of have some ethic I
>> want to push, some strategy for working towards that but no really
>> strong vision of "how it must be". I try to develop my sense of ethics,
>> and actually I feel stealing from a supermarket is more ethical than
>> buying from it... especially if we oppose big nation-states with the
>> recognition that the deep state doesn't start and end with the public
>> institutions, but its echelons reach deep with many different consenting
>> players (some more than others including ourselves).
>>
>> I'm curious to see how people are thinking about these sorts of ideas,
>> and feeling an affinity to anarcho-capitalism. I'm not interested in
>> what the theory says, but what you feel is right.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>