|
|
|
|
#1
08-21-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchy vs. Anarchy
Ok, it's not really a fight. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Anyway, I decided that I wanted to have a discussion about AC vs. AS (which is what I believe Kaj is, he can correct me if I'm wrong), but it was kind of lost in a giant thread with a lot of shouting. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So, what are the implications of this? If individuals do not have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for exclusive use, what does that mean? How would everyone in the world not immediately die out if this "right" were not recognized? [/ QUOTE ] Do monkeys immediately die out just because they don't formally recognize a "right" to exclusive use of the land? Did the Inuits or Lakota? [/ QUOTE ] Who said anything about "formal recognition"? Perhaps we are getting off track because of the use of the term "right" (which I put in quotes for a reason). Let me ask again in a different way: Is it wrong for a individual human being to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Is it wrong for individual monkeys to appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use? [/ QUOTE ] No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? 
|
|
#2
08-21-2007, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
My God, man. You've really lost it.
|
|
#5
08-21-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
It would probably help a fair bit if the two of you would define the meaning of "appropriate for his exclusive use." [/ QUOTE ] How could one possibly get a clearer definition of "appropriate for exclusive use" than "appropriate for exclusive use"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] And judging by what I've read Kaj is not an AC'ist. [/ QUOTE ] I know that. He's AS. Isn't that what I said?
|
|
#6
08-21-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
AS is close enough.
[ QUOTE ] Kaj: No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? As you already agreed ref, there is no such thing as an absolute "right" in this matter, but that what we call rights are basically social norms/conventions. So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). Your painting a bit of a false dichotomy -- I have to agree that everything regarding ownership is right or wrong. But why can't a society be based on the principle (just an example) that it's acceptable to "own" the fruits of your own individual labor but not to "own" the land and the fruits of all labor associated with this land or resources. Since you've agreed that rights stem from social norms, then you should have no trouble accepting this as a possibility. Your added phrase of "lest you die" merely reinforces how false this dichotomy is, as if no society could exist without direct land ownership (the Indians did it for thousands of years). Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Possibly. Depends on the specific society and the specific resource. An Indian didn't need permission to get a few logs for the fire, but if he tried to claim a new forest as his own and started cutting down all the trees, I imagine it would be different. Think of a commune model. A group can live over a territory and not have private ownership of the land, and decisions regarding forestation, mining, agriculture would be made by the group not the individual. Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? When you're alone in isolation, you are the whole society, correct? So if "wrong" is defined by the society you are a part of, and you're the whole society, well your answer is obvious.
|
|
#7
08-21-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something.
|
|
#8
08-21-2007, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? AS societies lasted for litterally tens of thousands of years.
|
|
#9
08-21-2007, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? AS societies lasted for litterally tens of thousands of years. [/ QUOTE ] These are recent examples. I don't know what you have in mind, but things that are quite a bit older, if in fact they were AS, aren't really relevant today anyway.
|
|
#10
08-21-2007, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? AS societies lasted for litterally tens of thousands of years. [/ QUOTE ] These are recent examples. I don't know what you have in mind, but things that are quite a bit older, if in fact they were AS, aren't really relevant today anyway. [/ QUOTE ] There have been hundreds if not thousands of anarchosocialist societies (stateless societies with social norms that do not include private ownership of the factors of production), and Kaj and I aren't talking about what is "relevant today". We're having a discussion about theory.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
