What is "leftism"?

[Traitorfish]

OK, now you are confusing me.

My understanding of anarchism is fairly limited, and my understanding of Rothbard is limited to a few online articles (Which is enough to know he was not a left-winger in any sense) but I don't get what you're getting at here. To me, whether the government protects your property claim or some private protection agency does, to me the implications are the same, I own X, you trying to take X from me that's an aggression against my property and I can thus use force to stop you from taking it from me, because that's part of the non-aggression principle, I can use force to stop you from using force against me. To my knowledge, left-libertarians would agree with this, but would disagree that I actually own anything, and so would claim that theft should not be a crime. To me, this doesn't really make any more sense than saying murder should no longer be a crime, I think what socialists object to is more how property is distributed, rather than the fact that I can stop you from taking things from me. But I'm definitely clueless here, some enlightenment would be appreciated.

Why does property need to be "Voluntary"? If I own something, the majority shouldn't be able to make me give it up. That just sounds like government again, not libertarianism.

If the distribution of property is not voluntary, then it must be enforced. For it to be enforced, coercion must be employed. Coercion on a social scale invariably involves the use of violence. If violence is being used towards a coherent end, then it implies some central agent, and what is this agent, if it is not the state?

You can certainly argue that people have no right to take things off you arbitrarily, but that's a different sort of ethical claim: it's about what people should volunteer to, not whether they should be permitted to organise voluntarily in the first place.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And if something is an imperative, then by what means will it be enforced? If you think people shouldn't be able to do something, then there must exist a force that protects that right from infringement, otherwise you are believing in the most hopeless for of idealism possible.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If the distribution of property is not voluntary, then it must be enforced. For it to be enforced, coercion must be employed. Coercion on a social scale invariably involves the use of violence. If violence is being used towards a coherent end, then it implies some central agent, and what is this agent, if it is not the state?

You can certainly argue that people have no right to take things off you arbitrarily, but that's a different sort of ethical claim: it's about what people should volunteer to, not whether they should be permitted to organise voluntarily in the first place.

Well, that's the reason I support a minimal state, but I know Rothbard rejects this, so how does he anticipate voluntary capitalism working? And if it is via property rights, is it not the same thing?

And even if a large majority of the people around me support my rights to own, say, this netbook, that doesn't mean one person won't steal it anyways.

Of course, in an extremely simple society, you could steal from me, and I could kill you in retaliation. There would be no law and order, every person could keep what he could protect by force. I don't think anyone supports that level of "Anarchy."

How are you defining "Voluntary" exactly? I feel silly asking for the definition of ushc a simple word, but I really don't know what you mean by it. "Not protected by force" assumes an unrealistic level of benevolence.

And if something is an imperative, then by what means will it be enforced? If you think people shouldn't be able to do something, then there must exist a force that protects that right from infringement, otherwise you are believing in the most hopeless for of idealism possible.

Like I said earlier, I do think that paleoconservatives are much more critical of authority than standard conservatives of David Cameron variety, and simply support local government more deeply rooted in tradition, both because it is much easier to depose such forms of authority and despite their pessimism in authority, still very much believe it is necessary.



Well, I don't know whether this faq points it out, but simply put, Murray Rothbard and Proudhon aren't really that different from each other. Both support a free market free of government intervention. The difference is vocabulary and motivations: Proudhon, being a poster child of left wing anarchism, believes unfettered free markets (which he calls "mutualism") to be the key to equality, or "socialism". Thus, he opposes what he calls "capitalism" (which Murray Rothbard would call "corporatism") which sustains the current wealth inequities. So both believe roughly the same thing, but Murray Rothbard applies the term "capitalism" on what Proudhon would call "socialism" and vice versa.

 

[Oruc]

:

I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

What an utterly worthless thing to say.

 

[Borachio]

Is it? I thought it had some merit myself. Though I think holocaust denial should still be illegal in Germany.

Who is it? Voltaire?

 

[Lord of Elves]

What an utterly worthless thing to say.

Well, case in point or whatever.

Marxism is a body of theory and criticism, it's not a political commitment in itself.

Whereas I could take the time and make the effort (which would probably be minimal, potentially in the extreme) to research this myself, your comment reminded me of a question I've had about Marx personally. Did Marx ever actually advocate the violent overthrow of capitalism as much as he predicted that like other inefficient systems of economic and political organization (feudalism, I guess would be an example) it would eventually become outdated and create the conditions that would end itself?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I believe Marx's statement of capitalism "ending itself" involved capitalism making itself plainly clear to everyone as a joke, and the oppressed and progressive class acting as oppressed and progressive classes have always done, and taking things into their own hands. Thus, revolution is implied by "capitalism ending itself."

 

[Oruc]

Is it? I thought it had some merit myself. Though I think holocaust denial should still be illegal in Germany.

Yes it is worthless, to use your example Lord of Elves is not defending holocaust denier's right to free speech to death.
Typically (though not in this instance) they say it only because they have nothing else to add.

Who is it? Voltaire?

Lord of Elves.

 

[Borachio]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire109645.html
Voltaire.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Yes it is worthless, to use your example Lord of Elves is not defending holocaust denier's right to free speech to death.
Typically (though not in this instance) they say it only because they have nothing else to add.

Holocaust deniers (at least in the United States), to my knowledge, have free speech rights like everyone else. So yes, my use of Voltaire's maxim applies to them as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, that's the reason I support a minimal state, but I know Rothbard rejects this, so how does he anticipate voluntary capitalism working? And if it is via property rights, is it not the same thing?

I can't say I'm familiar enough with his thought to say. Frankly, I think the idea of voluntary capitalism is as implausible as the idea of voluntary slavery. That's why I think that, past a certain point, exploring "anarcho-capitalst" ideas pushes you towards something fundamentally uncapitalistic.

And even if a large majority of the people around me support my rights to own, say, this netbook, that doesn't mean one person won't steal it anyways.

Of course, in an extremely simple society, you could steal from me, and I could kill you in retaliation. There would be no law and order, every person could keep what he could protect by force. I don't think anyone supports that level of "Anarchy."

I can't think of any simple societies have looked like that. It doesn't actually sound like "society" at all, but rather an extended fist-fight where everyone starves to death after about six months. Most simple societies regulate the distribution of material goods quite rigorously, they just don't use violence to do so.

How are you defining "Voluntary" exactly? I feel silly asking for the definition of ushc a simple word, but I really don't know what you mean by it. "Not protected by force" assumes an unrealistic level of benevolence.

No, that's fair. (Apparently simple words are often anything but!) The key, I think, is not the total absence of force, but the absence of force as a social regulator. Property is most fundamentally not a relationship between a person and an object, but between people, and in a capitalist society, those relations are regulated through the threat or use of force. (Nor is the actual use of force simply hypothetical; it has to be regularly demonstrated to remain a viable threat.) A voluntary distribution of property would be one in which these relations were regulated through non-violent means, such as tradition, public approval, the threat of non-cooperation, and so on. It doesn't mean the absolute absence of violence (how could that even be predicted?) but rather the absence of structural violence, violence as necessary to the reproduction of the social order.

 

[Oruc]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire109645.html
Voltaire.

Isn't it a misquote though? I thought someone else said it but everyone attributes it to Voltaire

Holocaust deniers (at least in the United States), to my knowledge, have free speech rights like everyone else. So yes, my use of Voltaire's maxim applies to them as well.

Does your morality only extend as far your nations borders? Shouldn't you be defending to the death holocaust deniers right to free speech in Germany.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Isn't it a misquote though? I thought someone else said it but everyone attributes it to Voltaire

Entirely possible. I think the important point to establish is, however, that I didn't coin that particular phrase.

 

[Borachio]

Voltaire was the man, afaik.

edit: Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

Oh look! You're right. Well I never!

There's a whole lot on stupidity, which I like.

To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.

But look:

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

which is so similar to what has been attributed to him.

 

[Angst]

Whereas I could take the time and make the effort (which would probably be minimal, potentially in the extreme) to research this myself, your comment reminded me of a question I've had about Marx personally. Did Marx ever actually advocate the violent overthrow of capitalism as much as he predicted that like other inefficient systems of economic and political organization (feudalism, I guess would be an example) it would eventually become outdated and create the conditions that would end itself?

I've read the Manifesto which is basically a rallying call to the workers.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Does your morality only extend as far your nations borders? Shouldn't you be defending to the death holocaust deniers right to free speech in Germany.

No, I don't think I should be defending the right of Holocaust deniers to free speech to death in Germany because I don't advocate war with Germany. Not all moral absolutes are worth enforcing absolutely; Germany will adjust its view on the rights of people with contrary opinions about the Holocaust when it is ready to do so. The loss of a little free speech in the name of national/social/group/whatever cohesion, stability and peace is why we have laws against using the right of free speech to incite violence or disturb the public tranquility/whatever phrase you find most applicable.

 

[civver_764]

I dunno, making holocaust denial against the law is a pretty stupid idea.

 

[Borachio]

Not in Germany, it isn't. Or at least it wasn't at the time the law was passed, I think. Though exactly what the logic was, I wouldn't like to be challenged on.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I dunno, making holocaust denial against the law is a pretty stupid idea.

Woah there. It's a great idea. Holocaust was the most horrific thing to happen in human history. The evidence is undeniable, it happen, no debate. It should never be forgotten. Those who deny it are hatemongering.

 

[Oruc]

No, I don't think I should be defending the right of Holocaust deniers to free speech to death in Germany because I don't advocate war with Germany. Not all moral absolutes are worth enforcing absolutely; Germany will adjust its view on the rights of people with contrary opinions about the Holocaust when it is ready to do so. The loss of a little free speech in the name of national/social/group/whatever cohesion, stability and peace is why we have laws against using the right of free speech to incite violence or disturb the public tranquility/whatever phrase you find most applicable.

Hold your horses son, I meant you personally not the military. But we can see how you won't defend people's right to free speech at all, certainly not to the death (you wont even cross a border), rendering the quote and it's sentiment utterly and completely worthless.