Discussion of Anarchism

[Traitorfish]

If you'd said "Cutlass endorses property rights," you'd have a point. But the attribution of "a natural rights theory" of property remains unjustified.

He hasn't contradicted me on it, and I'm not sure if it would make much a difference to the point if he did.

 

[ParkCungHee]

A rose by any other name... They may lose the official protection of being a "corporation". But in return for the loss of limited liability they gain immunity from liability. Since no one would have the ability to hold them responsible for their actions.

This is an absurdly broad definition of "Corporation." If by corporation we mean simply any organization not accountable to liability, then we already live under unbridled corporate power, because the American and British governments being "a rose by any other name", and having immunity from liability, are just exceedingly large and powerful corporations.

 

[Cutlass]

This is an absurdly broad definition of "Corporation." If by corporation we mean simply any organization not accountable to liability, then we already live under unbridled corporate power, because the American and British governments being "a rose by any other name", and having immunity from liability, are just exceedingly large and powerful corporations.

The liability part is the only part that they really stand to loose. The other important part is that they are owned by investors. That would not chance.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would the corporate executive recognise the property-claims of its stockholders without any state to oblige them to do so?

 

[Cutlass]

Why would the corporate executive recognise the property-claims of its stockholders without any state to oblige them to do so?

To keep the money coming.

 

[Traitorfish]

The money which no longer exists, because there's not state to enforce it?

 

[Cutlass]

The money which no longer exists, because there's not state to enforce it?

The money that never did require the existence of a state in the first place. What the hell does the state have to do with the existence of money? Hell, anarcho-capitalism assumes that money would be better without the state. It's a foolish belief, but the fact that the money will be worse does not in any way imply that it will not exist.

 

[Dachs]

The money that never did require the existence of a state in the first place. What the hell does the state have to do with the existence of money? Hell, anarcho-capitalism assumes that money would be better without the state. It's a foolish belief, but the fact that the money will be worse does not in any way imply that it will not exist.

You're not doing a very good job of being Integral.

With respect to the whole "corporations" thing, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of a "corporation" is a legal fiction developed largely by the English common-law judiciary in order to simplify the legal standing of certain kinds of companies that possess specific kinds of privileges under the law. There's literally no possible way for a corporation to exist independent of a state.

Now, a firm can certainly exist independent of a state, at least in theory, because unlike the corporation, the firm's definition does not depend on standing under the law of a given state. So this is probably just a case of sloppy terminology.

 

[Traitorfish]

The money that never did require the existence of a state in the first place. What the hell does the state have to do with the existence of money? Hell, anarcho-capitalism assumes that money would be better without the state. It's a foolish belief, but the fact that the money will be worse does not in any way imply that it will not exist.

Are there any historical examples of money existing outside of the state? (I'm genuinely curious.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

That requires an agreeable understanding of what a state is.
Good luck with that.

If you mean simply the use of a currency without the state imposing it, Ireland certainly qualifies, as most coins in circulation were foreign. Of course, then you have to muddle about with the definition of "money" because these were largely useless for most transactions.

 

[Integral]

Are there any historical examples of money existing outside of the state? (I'm genuinely curious.)

Cigarettes in a POW camp? At the very least it's an example of money that doesn't have the formal backing of the state.

 

[Cutlass]

Then we'll settle for illustration. What kind of changes do you think justify insurrection to enact?

Changing an extractive state to an inclusive one.

What we're saying is that if it looks like a state, walks like a state and quacks like a state, then it's probably a state. Point being, when people from one state establish another state, as was the case with the various private colonies, doesn't really constitute an example of a stateless society, whatever legal fictions may be draped around the place. So it does not, on the face of things, seem to prove anything one way or the other.

So it must be a state because that's what states do.

You've created a strawman of an argument.

The point about slavery and the destruction of indigenous Americans is that the state, government, is utterly and completely irrelevant to what happened to them. As in, government simply has nothing to do with the fact that chattel slavery and the destruction of the Indians took place.

Subtract out each and every state/government action, and they were just as dead and just as enslaved.

No difference.

The private actions were going to do this, irregardless of what the legal trappings they chose to wrap around it turned out to be.

Blaming the government or state is, fundamentally, a rejection of concept of personal responsibility.

Government did not cause the American institutions of slavery or the destruction of the Indians to happen. That was happening anyways.

And, ironically, the end of slavery and the end of the destruction only occurred because of the actions of government, of the state.

Government and the state did not start these things. It did end them. In the middle centuries it occurred not because the government made it occur, but because the government did not stop it from occurring.

Government was irrelevant.

The sick irony here is that some people who claim to be libertarian have more love for Jefferson and Madison, who acted to prevent the government from stopping slavery, and more hate for Lincoln, who acted to have the government actually stop slavery.

The discussion began with Amadeus' rejection of the legitimacy of forcible suppression of Souther secession, and expanded to a discussion of the anarchist cirituq of the state more generally. "Discussion of Anarchism" is just the name the Ori gave it when he split the thread, we were never actually discussing stateless models of social organisation- at least as far as I'm aware.

I don't see how you can limit it like that and not distort things.

"Banned" by who? If there's no state, how can something be disallowed? I think you're confusing a rejection of the state as a means of redress with the rejection of all means by which a redress may be pursued.

Many of my discussions with Amadeus have come to an end based on his insistence that there can be no allowable forums for the resolution of disputes.

Well, I think that I've wandered wildly off track here, so it's probably best if I go back to the original point: the comparative strength of your and Amadeus' defence of private property.

Amadeus defends private property as a moral principle and this moral obligation; we should respect the property of others because it is moral to do so, and acting morally will allow society to function harmoniously without the involvement of a state. His propertarianism is strong in a philosophical sense, in that he regards it as inalienable, and any attempt to take somebody's rightful property without their consent is immoral. (He rejects involuntarily taxation, for example.) However, in practical terms it is a fairly weak strain of propertarianism, because he rejects the legitimacy of any state capable of enforcing it through violence. Property is constructed through mutual goodwill, and any party that acts to harm others loses this goodwill, and so cannot expect others to respect their property claims.

Contrasting with this, you defend private property as an aspect of the law; we should respect the property of others because big men will hit us with sticks if we do not. It's a philosophically weak version of propertarianism, open to the appropriation of property on utilitarian grounds. (Continuing the example given above, you support involuntary taxation.) But in practical terms it is a relatively strong form of propertarianism, because you support the use of state violence to sustain it. Property is sustained through what amounts to a form of terror, the constant threat that those who refuse to respect the state-endorsed distribution of property-claims will be met with violence- even fatal violence, should the situation so escalate.

What this amounts to is the fact that, in terms of practical policy, you are far more supportive of corporate power than Amadeus is, because only you argue that there should exist a body of men who militantly defend the initial fact of corporate power, and, indeed, that this body should be funded through a generalised expropriation of wealth, i.e. taxation. Thus, it seems to me contradictory that you should raise a warning of unchecked corporate power against Amadeus, when the only one of you arguing that (not to put too fine a point on it) people who transgress against corporate power should be killed is you.

No, you've misrepresented my point. "we should respect the property of others because big men will hit us with sticks if we do not." That is not my belief. I respect property because the individual has a right to the property they have worked to own. It is about the individual. The government is a means to that end. And the government is a necessary means to that end because relying on the goodness of others, in the absence of an enforcement mechanism, has no expectation of ever working.

People have a right to defend themselves. Assuming that they have nothing to defend themselves from is just utterly ludicrous. Legitimate government is the collective actions of self defense.

 

[Cutlass]

Are there any historical examples of money existing outside of the state? (I'm genuinely curious.)

In the Free Banking Era of the United States, any bank could issue any money it cared to. And so could essentially anyone else. The government was irrelevant to the money supply.

Or, there could be gold. Or, before that, cattle, seashells, wampum, whatever. More recently, barter credits.

 

[Integral]

Can't believe I missed that one. Good catch. In the free banking era you have currencies existing alongside, but separate from, the state.

It's not a perfect example, because the currencies exist in the context of state-provided economic institutions (contracts, property rights, etc). However it does show that the state does not necessarily have to be involved in the money-making.

I don't know if you're going to find currency proper existing prior to states - that's the main point of Graeber's Debt book.

 

[Abegweit]

Private parties certainly can arbitrate their own disputes. And in most disputes that is what happens. Where the state comes in is where private parties cannot arbitrate their own disputes fairly and without violence.

No. Where the state comes in is when private parties are forbidden to arbitrate their own disputes fairly and without violence.

If a company contaminates my water, I have no recourse other than the state. There is no way of getting redress without some force greater than the company taking my side.

Do you really think that the only possible force greater than your bugaboo is a gang of thieves?

 

[Abegweit]

In the Free Banking Era of the United States, any bank could issue any money it cared to. And so could essentially anyone else. The government was irrelevant to the money supply.

There never was a free banking era in the US. Never happened. There were times in which manipulating money in favour of the banksters was largely run by the states instead of the central government. For real free banking check Scotland or Canada.

 

[Integral]

There never was a free banking era in the US. Never happened. There were times in which manipulating money in favour of the banksters was largely run by the states instead of the central government. For real free banking check Scotland or Canada.

O RLY

 

[Abegweit]

Are there any historical examples of money existing outside of the state? (I'm genuinely curious.)

Short answer: yes. There are many examples. Money is older than the state. Then there are cases like cigarettes used as money in prisons.

There is nothing magical about the state. There is nothing which the state does that private individuals cannot do for themselves - and with far oppression and far less waste.

 

[Integral]

Short answer: yes. There are many examples. Money is older than the state. Then there are cases like cigarettes used as money in prisons.

There is nothing magical about the state. There is nothing which the state does that private individuals cannot do for themselves - and with far oppression and far less waste.

I claim that it's pretty damn difficult to make a long list. I mean, I hate to be taking the Graeber's side, but you're gonna need more specific examples than that!

 

[Abegweit]

O RLY

On PC matters, the wikipedia is a joke. There are a lot of gatekeepers who prevent truth from getting through. I do note this: "in that year New York adopted the Free Banking Act, which permitted anyone to engage in banking, upon compliance with certain charter conditions". IOW, it wasn't free at all.