|
|
|
|
#1
11-24-2007, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY. These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM. A world of difference- [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not different at all. [/ QUOTE ] ANARCHIST : "Property is theft". Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct". [/ QUOTE ] False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist". [/ QUOTE ] Ofcourse not, if you want to make claims to authority over property in an anarchist society you have to make contract. Property rights beyond right of use (gathered through cooperative means) is meaningless to a true anarchist, if property rights are an inviolable absolute then you give the state legitimacy over land in the same degree you give someone who pointed at an unowned piece of land 500 years ago legitimacy over it. There would be no difference. As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. 
|
|
#2
11-25-2007, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) What they did is they tried to establish direct rule, i.e. participatory democracy, through the rule of local councils. They tried to have as much as possible participation of all classes of people except for priests, landlords, bosses and the like, but without any other restrictions as to sex, nationality, etc. Workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia were supposed to have an equal say with prostitutes in this. Of course, all preconceived, bourgeois notions of individual morality were trashed. Yes, the anarchists were serious about the slogan "All Power To The Soviets!" while the true-red Communists of the (official) communist party were certainly not. The Commies wanted all power to the party... "Soviet" means "council", in Russian.
|
|
#3
11-25-2007, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. What seems to trouble most anarchists about a government isn't that it is a government, but how it governs.
|
|
#4
11-25-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. What seems to trouble most anarchists about a government isn't that it is a government, but how it governs. [/ QUOTE ] Then they are not anarchists! No government is what the damned word means!
|
|
#5
11-25-2007, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. What seems to trouble most anarchists about a government isn't that it is a government, but how it governs. [/ QUOTE ] Then they are not anarchists! No government is what the damned word means! [/ QUOTE ] No, it means no compulsory government, it doesn't mean no government. And it means no permanent authority, not no authority. ACism otoh tends to hold an absolute 'no government' view.
|
|
#6
11-25-2007, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. What seems to trouble most anarchists about a government isn't that it is a government, but how it governs. [/ QUOTE ] Then they are not anarchists! No government is what the damned word means! [/ QUOTE ] No, it means no compulsory government, it doesn't mean no government. And it means no permanent authority, not no authority. [/ QUOTE ] If it's not compulsory, it's not government. [ QUOTE ] ACism otoh tends to hold an absolute 'no government' view. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, because all government is compulsory. We support anything that's not compulsory though, so if you have something you call government that isn't compulsory, go for it.
|
|
#7
11-25-2007, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) [/ QUOTE ] Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. What seems to trouble most anarchists about a government isn't that it is a government, but how it governs. [/ QUOTE ] Then they are not anarchists! No government is what the damned word means! [/ QUOTE ] No, it means no compulsory government, it doesn't mean no government. And it means no permanent authority, not no authority. ACism otoh tends to hold an absolute 'no government' view. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, the semantics game. The "two people deciding where to go eat lunch are forming a government" semantics game. Please, get real.
|
|
#8
11-25-2007, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ]Anarchists have come to power, in History. in 1848, in Paris, France, also in 1937, in areas of Spain, etc. They have never abolished all government. They were anarchists, not fans of Jesse James. (Though some anarchists were ex-bandits.) What they did is they tried to establish direct rule, i.e. participatory democracy, through the rule of local councils. They tried to have as much as possible participation of all classes of people except for priests, landlords, bosses and the like, but without any other restrictions as to sex, nationality, etc. Workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia were supposed to have an equal say with prostitutes in this. Of course, all preconceived, bourgeois notions of individual morality were trashed. Yes, the anarchists were serious about the slogan "All Power To The Soviets!" while the true-red Communists of the (official) communist party were certainly not. The Commies wanted all power to the party... "Soviet" means "council", in Russian. [/ QUOTE ] So what you're saying is that communists who called themselves anarchists, but very obvious weren't, came to power. Uhm... k.
|
|
#9
11-25-2007, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY. These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM. A world of difference- [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not different at all. [/ QUOTE ] ANARCHIST : "Property is theft". Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct". [/ QUOTE ] False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist". [/ QUOTE ] Ofcourse not, if you want to make claims to authority over property in an anarchist society you have to make contract. [/ QUOTE ] No, you don't, although it does make things easier most of the time. [ QUOTE ] Lack of property rights beyond right of use (gathered through cooperative means) is meaningless to a true anarchist, if lack of property rights are an inviolable absolute then you give the state legitimacy over land in the same degree you give someone who pointed at an unowned piece of land 500 years ago legitimacy over it. There would be no difference. [/ QUOTE ] I completely agree with what you obviously meant to say here from my correction. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, in a world where "half" means "completely".
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
