|
|
#11
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. 
|
|
#12
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.
|
|
#14
08-21-2007, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
Can we please not do this color thing? It's impossible to follow and keep straight when trying to write a reply. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Yep. I'm trying to find out how it can possibly be meaningful to deny something is a "right" if, as you say, it is not wrong, and human beings by their very nature must in fact do that thing or else die. Not that I think the concept of "rights" is essential. But they are mighty convenient, and I don't really understand the reason for eschewing such a convenient label. <font color="red"> Because the label has the connotation of absoluteness. Most people talk about "natural rights" as if they should be inviolate, not social norms. I think being more precise is important because as we've seen in these recent threads, even many ACists won't acknowledge these rights aren't absolute (nietzrazor a recent example). </font> [ QUOTE ] So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). [/ QUOTE ] I mostly agree with this. I think there are objectively identifiable considerations regarding morality. But those things, while objective, I don't think are absolute. I'll get back to that later. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't paint any such dichotomy, false or otherwise. A society can certainly do exactly that, and many have. That's not the question. The question is, what's wrong with labeling that principle, that social norm, that "it's acceptable to 'own' the fruits of your own individual labor" a "right"? What's the problem? Sure, it's subjective. Ok. No problem, got it. But what's wrong with then labeling that a "right"? Seems like you're just bending over backwards to avoid a really convenient term. <font color="red">Again, the importance is in making it clear that these "rights" aren't absolute. If everybody here acknowledged that rights are subjective social norms, there wouldn't be an issue. As we've already seen, many here can't or won't acknowledge this concept. I wouldn't be bending over backwards the word didn't carry so much extra baggage (some dictionary definitions will even use absolute, truth, and other terms).</font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. We'll dispense with it. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] <font color="red">The false dichotomy is that every question of ownership has to have things like "lest you die" etc. attached, as if societal norms on ownership have to be one size fits all. </font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Again with the false dichotomy? There is no false dichotomoy. If you don't appropriate natural resources for your exclusive use, you will die. You will starve to death. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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). [/ QUOTE ] No, not at all. I wasn't taking about land (at least not in the economic sense); I was just talking about natural resources. Man must appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use lest he die. Last time I checked, food is fructis naturalis, to eat that food one must appropriate it from nature, and in doing so deny that same use to everyone else in the world. <font color="red"> Again a false dichotomy. First, the norms of my society may only be applicable to those who live in my society. So if a man I never met is starving halfway across the world, why is it a necessity for my society to have norms that say we must feed him? Might be nice, but not required. My society/tribe/commune/community doesn't have to treat every member of the planet the same in terms of taking care of them (of course not as this is impossible). So I don't see what your point here is?</font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Where did this come from? What I'm saying is that individuals must appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use or they will die. This is a simple fact of nature; it's conservation of mass and energy. If I don't eat, I will die. Since food is a product of nature, I must appropriate that product of nature in order to eat it. Once I have eaten it, nobody else can eat it. Hence I have denied them use of it; I appropriated that natural resource for my exclusive use, and if I didn't engage in this, I would die, as would everyone else. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] I have no problem with this. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Got it. Imagine now a set of islands strung across the ocean, each containing a single stranded Crusoe. Each is his own society, yes? Hence each can appropriate natural resources on "his" (put in quotes because I'm not trying to beg the question) as he wishes, correct? <font color="red"> When you say "can", the answer is obviously yes since no one can stop him, so the question appears meaningless. If you mean "can" as to mean is he morally justified, well again we get back to subjective values/morals. Sure he "can" cut down every tree on his island, kill every living thing, and dump thousands of gallons poison into the sand. I imagine you're going to try and take this to the "everyman is his own island" line of thinking. But what's the point? I haven't advocated that I can impose my will on Mr Crusoe by force (not that I'm advocating against it either) so long as he lives apart from my community, and such a view is not necessary to an AS society. </font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The question is, is anything in the scenario wrong according to your personal morals? Are any of our Crusoes doing anything wrong in your opinion? I'm not accusing you of wanting to impose your will on them. I just want to know, given their situation, are they doing anything wrong according to you personally. [ QUOTE ] Edit: If anything in there appeared snarky, I apologize. Didn't mean for it to ... thread is already getting hard to read [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Nope. It's all good. Just stick to regular quotes instead of that color stuff and you'll make me happy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Boro, if the societal norms permit shared use of natural resources to provide sustenance for all, then you won't die. As for the Crusoes doing anything wrong based on my personal opinion, I don't know what exactly they are doing. There's a difference between grabbing some logs for a fire and pouring 1000s of gallons of poison into the sea. I'll follow-up more later...
|
|
#15
08-21-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
Boro, if the societal norms permit shared use of natural resources to provide sustenance for all, then you won't die. [/ QUOTE ] Ok then. No. This is wrong. If I eat an apple, then you can't eat that apple. You can still eat another one, but you sure as hell can't eat that one, unless you wait for the morning, and by then you probably won't want it. Whetever I eat, you can't eat. Because I have used that good, I have denied its use to every other person on earth. This is the definition of "appropriation of natural resources for exclusive use". Again, I'm not talking about "land" in some expansive extent. I'm just talking about natural resources; if individuals don't appropriate some natural resources for their own exclusive use, then they will die of (at least) starvation. Agreed? [ QUOTE ] As for the Crusoes doing anything wrong based on my personal opinion, I don't know what exactly they are doing. There's a difference between grabbing some logs for a fire and pouring 1000s of gallons of poison into the sea. I'll follow-up more later... [/ QUOTE ] Presume for the sake of discussion that they aren't pouring poison into the sea, since that could obviously affect the other Crusoes on the other islands. We can reinstate that possibility later, though.
|
|
#16
08-22-2007, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Boro, if the societal norms permit shared use of natural resources to provide sustenance for all, then you won't die. [/ QUOTE ] Ok then. No. This is wrong. If I eat an apple, then you can't eat that apple. You can still eat another one, but you sure as hell can't eat that one, unless you wait for the morning, and by then you probably won't want it. Whetever I eat, you can't eat. Because I have used that good, I have denied its use to every other person on earth. This is the definition of "appropriation of natural resources for exclusive use". Again, I'm not talking about "land" in some expansive extent. I'm just talking about natural resources; if individuals don't appropriate some natural resources for their own exclusive use, then they will die of (at least) starvation. Agreed? [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. And whether you call this appropriation a natural right or a societal norm is really not important. By the way, by this discussion path, am I wrong to take one of your apples to feed a starving person? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As for the Crusoes doing anything wrong based on my personal opinion, I don't know what exactly they are doing. There's a difference between grabbing some logs for a fire and pouring 1000s of gallons of poison into the sea. I'll follow-up more later... [/ QUOTE ] Presume for the sake of discussion that they aren't pouring poison into the sea, since that could obviously affect the other Crusoes on the other islands. We can reinstate that possibility later, though. [/ QUOTE ] You are still asking me whether I regard some activity as "not wrong" according to my personal value system without telling me what the activity itself exactly is.
|
|
#17
08-22-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
Sweet baby Jesus!
I consider myself an above average intelligent purpose, but with all the quotes/subquotes/colors/redefinitions, I haven't a clue what the heck you guys are talking about. PLS to provide some sort of bullet summary of both side's positions.
|
|
#19
08-22-2007, 03:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
PLS to provide some sort of bullet summary of both side's positions. [/ QUOTE ] Borodog is an Anarcho Capitalist, Kaj an Anarcho Syndicalist. Google it, there isn't much else to the discussion. The whole thing just gets very comlicated cause the terms used aren't defined clearly.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
