Discussion of Anarchism

[amadeus]

Amadeus is an anarchist now?

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

 

[Cutlass]

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

Without the state, "free-market capitalism" isn't even a theoretical possibility.

 

[Traitorfish]

The "logical" conclusion is a bunch of petty tyrants. The illogical conclusion is liberty.

Very droll, but you know what I mean. The grounds on which Amadeus expresses support for the secession of any given state from the Union also permit any given individual to secede from a state. Whether or not you think this is a particular effective approach to questions of liberty doesn't change the fact that it doesn't imply the Confederate-apologism that you originally claimed.

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

A lot of that comes down to how you define "capitalism". Anti-capitalists, market and anti-market, take it as specifically denoting relationships of power, not merely systems of market exchange, so may not regard any given "anarcho-capitalism" as being capitalistic in the proper sense, but some as sort of individualist market socialism. (Unfortunately, a lot of them don't really look any further than the label, leaving the whole discourse just a bit stunted.) A given "anarcho-capitalist" might not particularly like that label, of course, but in the most fundamental sense it's an issue of semantics rather than theory.

 

[kochman]

Kind of hard to support the enabling of great tyranny and not the tyranny itself.

Not that I think we are going to agree on anything, but do you see where the confusion comes in?

I don't.
He supports the notion of the 10th Amendment, States' Rights...
Not slavery... which was the issue.

Had the secession been about proper bubble gum disposal... he'd probably still have supported the 10th Amendment. It's not the duck, it's the principle.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

Correct, he should have used the term "feudal," because that's precisely what it would result in.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see how British ownership of Northern Ireland is particularly racist. You can make arguments for everything else in the list being motivated by racism, but the latter is stretching it. Was Tzarist Russia's control over Poland "racist towards Poles"?

It would depend on how that power was excercized. I'm not big on Polish history, but as far as I know there weren't systemic attempt to prevent Polish property ownership, distribution of public services, and long standing, publicly supported mass harassment, I think you'd be on to something.

British control of Northern Ireland isn't racist in itself, but the way that power was excercised was. The Stormont regime was one of the most racialized states in the world, and had the full support of the British government.

 

[del62]

It would depend on how that power was excercized. I'm not big on Polish history, but as far as I know there weren't systemic attempt to prevent Polish property ownership, distribution of public services, and long standing, publicly supported mass harassment, I think you'd be on to something.

British control of Northern Ireland isn't racist in itself, but the way that power was excercised was. The Stormont regime was one of the most racialized states in the world, and had the full support of the British government.

I think you have missed the point, the question was on current British Policy in NI, not the pre deirect rule policy, which is better described in sectarian rather than racial lines anyway.

 

[Traitorfish]

Even though the identification of an individual as a Catholic or Protestant did not follow coherently sectarian lines?

 

[Cutlass]

Very droll, but you know what I mean. The grounds on which Amadeus expresses support for the secession of any given state from the Union also permit any given individual to secede from a state. Whether or not you think this is a particular effective approach to questions of liberty doesn't change the fact that it doesn't imply the Confederate-apologism that you originally claimed.

Fair enough...

If you assume that people are not responsible for their actions just because they use the excuse that they didn't know their actions would have consequences.

However it also rejects the libertarian concept of contracts. You don't get to just unilaterally renounce your end of a contract because it isn't going the way you want it to. You either have to have the terms of breaking the contract spelled out within it, or you have to go through a resolution process that is acceptable to both sides. The sanctity of contracts is a big part of the capitalist-libertarian worldview. Secession without resolution acceptable to both sides can't be considered within libertarian principles. And in the ACW, no attempt was made for a non-violent resolution.

 

[NickyJ]

No, he wasn't limited to the camps... but jeez, that's like saying...
Let's talk about Hitler and all the good things he did, but let's keep the Holocaust out of it (obviously a gross exaggeration on my part, but the point remains)...
Or, better, if I were saying, Let's talk about Reagan and how awesome he was, but don't bring up the Iran Contra Scandal...

Anyhow, I like FDR overall. He did some things that I don't agree with:
*Internment camps
*Tried to, conveniently, add several judges to the Supreme Court (which he would have appointed of course, permanently swinging the makeup of the SC)
*Mostly failed economic policies (though some helped people, so it's a mixed bag)
*Didn't retire after 2nd term (and yes, he absolutely should have, and this is echoed by the fact that a constitutional amendment made it law rather than just tradiion after his time)
*Salary caps during the war... this lead to employers offering health insurance since they couldn't offer raises, etc... This lead to the terrible debacle with HC we have in the USA today (talk about an action having LONG TERM effects), though it clearly wasn't intended to do so, it was a bad choice

But, one of the biggest jobs of the POTUS? Commander in Chief
He was awesome as a commander in chief in a time when it was needed. I think when it comes down to it, American Presidents are generally going to perform well in such a situation, but he certainly did do it, and as such, gets much appreciation.

This. He made some mistakes, but overall, he was a good leader.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fair enough...

If you assume that people are not responsible for their actions just because they use the excuse that they didn't know their actions would have consequences.

What actions? I don't really follow.

However it also rejects the libertarian concept of contracts. You don't get to just unilaterally renounce your end of a contract because it isn't going the way you want it to. You either have to have the terms of breaking the contract spelled out within it, or you have to go through a resolution process that is acceptable to both sides. The sanctity of contracts is a big part of the capitalist-libertarian worldview. Secession without resolution acceptable to both sides can't be considered within libertarian principles. And in the ACW, no attempt was made for a non-violent resolution.

The libertarian theory of contract assumes that both parties are entering into the contract in a wholly voluntary manner, without coercion on either part, and it's questionable to what extent this reasonably describes the relationship between the individual and the state.

 

[Cutlass]

What actions? I don't really follow.

If you remove regulation, and people are harmed because of it, are not the people who removed it responsible?

The libertarian theory of contract assumes that both parties are entering into the contract in a wholly voluntary manner, without coercion on either part, and it's questionable to what extent this reasonably describes the relationship between the individual and the state.

They can leave rather than screw it up for others.

 

[Traitorfish]

If you remove regulation, and people are harmed because of it, are not the people who removed it responsible?

I don't really see what this has to do with unilateral political secession...

They can leave rather than screw it up for others.

Isn't that what secession means?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't really see what this has to do with unilateral political secession...

So people who secede are not responsible for the consequences of doing so?

Isn't that what secession means?

Well I don't know.. You seemed to switch back and forth from the states to the individuals. I'm not sure which one you're on.

An individual can just leave. A state leaving is taking something that is part of the country with them rather than leaving. The situations aren't really the same. Unless you mean this idiotic "sovereign citizen" movement. And those people are just criminal anarchists, not actually secessionists.

 

[Traitorfish]

So people who secede are not responsible for the consequences of doing so?

What consequences are we talking about, here?

Well I don't know.. You seemed to switch back and forth from the states to the individuals. I'm not sure which one you're on.

In this case, both. Amadeus support for the secession of states from the Union is an extension of his support for the secession of individuals from the state (or, for that matter, the Union), so what applies to one at least very broadly applies to the other.

An individual can just leave. A state leaving is taking something that is part of the country with them rather than leaving. The situations aren't really the same. Unless you mean this idiotic "sovereign citizen" movement. And those people are just criminal anarchists, not actually secessionists.

Why does "leaving" imply physical departure? It's not as if the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies packed up their things and fecked off over the Appalachia, and yet I don't see any great rush to criticise them for their patently illegal behaviour.

And I'd ask that you don't sully the name of hard-working criminal anarchists with that most pitiful of pseudo-movements.

 

[Cutlass]

What consequences are we talking about, here?

Whichever ones happen to come up.

In this case, both. Amadeus support for the secession of states from the Union is an extension of his support for the secession of individuals from the state (or, for that matter, the Union), so what applies to one at least very broadly applies to the other.

OK. That explains his position as you understand it. However the same applies: You have to have a prior agreement or process that is acceptable to both sides. If anyone can just walk from a contract without consequences, then effectively there can be no contracts. And with no contracts, there can be no market economics.

Why does "leaving" imply physical departure? It's not as if the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies packed up their things and fecked off over the Appalachia, and yet I don't see any great rush to criticise them for their patently illegal behaviour.

Of course it was illegal. But we won the war. Had we lost, there would have been some serious negative consequences. The Confederacy lost the war. But more to the point, the Colonies had exhausted the legal remedies available before resorting to force. The Confederacy resorted to force before attempting legal remedies.

And I'd ask that you don't sully the name of hard-working criminal anarchists with that most pitiful of pseudo-movements.

That's just free-lance socialism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Whichever ones happen to come up.

I'm afraid I'm lost again: what does this have to do with the Confederacy?

OK. That explains his position as you understand it. However the same applies: You have to have a prior agreement or process that is acceptable to both sides. If anyone can just walk from a contract without consequences, then effectively there can be no contracts. And with no contracts, there can be no market economics.

No doubt, but that assumes that the contract A) was legitimate, and B) is being upheld by the other party/ies. Anti-statists operating in the liberal tradition would reject both claims, arguing that the individual citizen is given no choice in their subjection to the state, and that the state habitually and perhaps even inevitably fails to fulfil the conditions of legitimate government. For them, it is precisely the sanctity of the voluntary contract that leads them to the rejection of the state.

Of course it was illegal. But we won the war. Had we lost, there would have been some serious negative consequences. The Confederacy lost the war. But more to the point, the Colonies had exhausted the legal remedies available before resorting to force. The Confederacy resorted to force before attempting legal remedies.

Do you think that the Thirteen Colonies were morally obliged to pursue independence within the legal framework of the British imperial system? (As in, for their own sake, rather than to minimise violence or something like that.) That they were not within their rights to jettison the whole thing with or without British consent? Not to imply that this is anywhere near analogous to the situation in 1861, but it seems like an important point of principal none the less.

That's just free-lance socialism.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm afraid I'm lost again: what does this have to do with the Confederacy?

All actions have consequences. Some more harmful than others.

No doubt, but that assumes that the contract A) was legitimate, and B) is being upheld by the other party/ies. Anti-statists operating in the liberal tradition would reject both claims, arguing that the individual citizen is given no choice in their subjection to the state, and that the state habitually and perhaps even inevitably fails to fulfil the conditions of legitimate government. For them, it is precisely the sanctity of the voluntary contract that leads them to the rejection of the state.

But most people do volunteer to them. And so they shouldn't have that choice forcibly taken away.

Do you think that the Thirteen Colonies were morally obliged to pursue independence within the legal framework of the British imperial system? (As in, for their own sake, rather than to minimise violence or something like that.) That they were not within their rights to jettison the whole thing with or without British consent? Not to imply that this is anywhere near analogous to the situation in 1861, but it seems like an important point of principal none the less.

They pursued redress of grievances within the system as it existed at the time. The subject of independence only came up when all the efforts were dismissed without serious consideration.

I can't claim credit for originating that.. .

 

[Traitorfish]

All actions have consequences. Some more harmful than others.

I don't follow.

But most people do volunteer to them. And so they shouldn't have that choice forcibly taken away.

Maybe so, but they don't see it that way. A key point, I believe, is that there exists no mechanism by which an individual may decline to volunteer, leaving you with a "you can have any colour you want, so long as it's black" situation that casts doubt on the legitimately voluntary character of political submission.

They pursued redress of grievances within the system as it existed at the time. The subject of independence only came up when all the efforts were dismissed without serious consideration.

But again, do you think that they had any moral obligation to work within that framework?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't follow.

If you are advocating a course of action, and that action has a strong possibility of harmful consequences, then you have a responsibility. This decentralization you say they advocate has a higher chance of bringing despots to power than bringing about liberty. You cannot ignore that consequence when advocating for it.

This isn't just ama. All of the small government people arguing for state's rights keep ignoring is that most of the states have never been big on liberty.

Maybe so, but they don't see it that way. A key point, I believe, is that there exists no mechanism by which an individual may decline to volunteer, leaving you with a "you can have any colour you want, so long as it's black" situation that casts doubt on the legitimately voluntary character of political submission.

That may be true in the cases of a small number of people. However for most people the government is the collective banding together for mutual protection.

But again, do you think that they had any moral obligation to work within that framework?

To try to, at least. Up to the extent that such was possible.