Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow...semantics is boring. Equality is MORE important to AS than AC, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equality of what?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Nobody ever claimed that a free market society would be "free from coercion". There would be theft, murder, rape, and fraud, i.e. coercion. It is simply that a free market society would be based on a social norm of libertarian ethics, i.e. that the initiation of force is bad. You can certainly use force to defend one's life, liberty, and proprty. Duh.

It is worth noting that this is pretty much the ethic that is shared by most people *right now*: don't harm other people, and don't take their stuff. It is only the widespread crazy belief that we need a special caste of people who are allowed, nay, required to commit crimes, like theft, kidnapping, mass murder, etc. lest society plunge into chaos, that allows the state to exist. Statism is a crazy, violent religion that people are raised into from the time they are 5 years old by the state's acolytes, and that religion tells people that it's ok if a distant bureaucracy does for them what would be criminal for them to do themselves, while also pacifying them to the state's predations upon them.

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

As for who enforces your property rights, you do, or your designated agents. Just like you do now, in the vast majority of cases, since the state does literally almost nothing to actually enforce property rights.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody ever claimed that a free market society would be "free from coercion". There would be theft, murder, rape, and fraud, i.e. coercion. It is simply that a free market society would be based on a social norm of libertarian ethics, i.e. that the initiation of force is bad. You can certainly use force to defend one's life, liberty, and proprty. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see how a declaration of rights is anything but an implicit initiation of force. Rights without force mean nothing. You say you have a right to property and to its defense, but this is merely based on your moral outlook.

[ QUOTE ]
It is worth noting that this is pretty much the ethic that is shared by most people *right now*: don't harm other people, and don't take their stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that it is fair game to tell everyone else that it's wrong to force their morality on others, but you want to force your morality upon others because most people already agree? I'm glad we've covered the hypocrisy in both the moral and democratic arenas already.

[ QUOTE ]

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you come off like this, and fly off the handle whenever I make even a single insulting comment in any of my posts.

Unlike you, I make no claim to knowing the perfect government or social system. I'm a lot more interested in how we can improve what we do have, rather than make theoretical claims about motivation, incentive, happiness and the such that lead to oversimplified, unrealistic models being held as gospel.

My only real hope for humanity is that we are not so simple...

[ QUOTE ]

As for who enforces your property rights, you do, or your designated agents. Just like you do now, in the vast majority of cases, since the state does literally almost nothing to actually enforce property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, what you are saying is that you leave it to people to enforce their own property rights. Almost making the whole notion of invoking some "voodoo" right unnecessary. Fascinating, do tell.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you come off like this, and fly off the handle whenever I make even a single insulting comment in any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but he's using retalitory insults, not initiated insults. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Luxoris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense, it merely limits the group he wants an opinion from so that their position and his responses can be clearly defined.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense, it merely limits the group he wants an opinion from so that their position and his responses can be clearly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it clearly implies that he thinks such a position is foolish and that he isn't really interested in learning. If he had simply said "A serious question for ACists" instead, it would have been a simple question of the type you describe, but by making it "those who think that AC is completely free from coercion, he's turning that question into an attack.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that ACists believed that there would be no coercion, but merely that their "system" of property rights was somehow devoid of implicit "coercion". And yes, I believe that to be the case. I ask a question to understand how I might be mistaken.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that ACists believed that there would be no coercion, but merely that their "system" of property rights was somehow devoid of implicit "coercion". And yes, I believe that to be the case. I ask a question to understand how I might be mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there isnt really an objective reason why we should have property rights, but what would you put in its place. I cant think if any other system of property that is theoretically consistant. If no property rights then what?

[owsley]

An ACist society would certainly not be coercion and crime free, but what it would do was eliminate the biggest coercive and criminal organization known to anyone: the federal government.