Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

We're all Libertarians! Yeah, Really!

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An Open Letter to Cody_Franklin and All the Pro-Capitalists at this Site

It seems that the philosophical undercurrent of your thinking gravitates toward, or emanates from a fearful skepticism about the state's lack of potential for benevolence, and its oft demonstrated high potential for transgressing against its citizens' liberties and interests. Yes, I'm afraid that your darksome conception of the societal agenda of leftists, and of the futuristic, socially-engineered state they supposedly have in store for us is somewhat Orwellian. You seem to cynically take it for granted that some kind of dystopian nightmare is the only and the inexorable outcome of what you consider to be the left's progressive pipedream of social justice for all.

Well, I for one humbly but strenuously beg to disagree that an anti-libertarian statist system is the catastrophic anticlimax that all socialist thinking unavoidably leads to. Brace yourself and prepare to revise your misconceptions of me, because I'm about to drop a bombshell on them. I am not at all some sort of "statist" socialist, in actuality I'm more of an anarcho-communist. As some of you are already well aware, I'm quite anti-capitalist and advocate socialist remedies for our society's socioeconomic ills. However, the ultimate form of social organization that I would like to see society aspire toward is decidedly not an overly bureaucratized, Big Brotherly socialist system, but one in which all property and power is communalized, in which the whole public sphere of life, i.e. both the political and economic spheres are controlled by the people themselves through the application of authentically participatory, direct democracy (you know, democracy unvitiated by the ole business-political complex).

Such a society ideally would be divided into small social units, locally manageable by their members, and linked with other units into an interdependent and cooperative league of communities. One that recognizes the fundamental and liberating life-truth, that no living organism is an island unto itself, that everyone and thing exists and operates within a mutually dependent and creative matrix, and that individuals must go along with the ontologically deep mutuality of this matrix to get along.

Which is all to say that in my view the best form and arrangement of society would be one that reflects the creative cosmic modus operandi of life's inherent fruitfulness, bounty, and splendorous potential coming into actualization through the unified diversity of all things. That is, we need to embrace e pluribus unum as more than a mere motto, we need to structure its sublime spirit into the politico-economic morphology and status quo of our nation and world.

Alas though, the excessive economic individualism of capitalism, it's advocacy of self-interest as the chief guiding principle of economics and life, grievously errs on the side of an unbalanced emphasis on the diversity-individuality part of the equation. The cruel consequences of this out-of-balance, out-of-whack emphasis are all around us today. Ours is a society full of atomized individuals wrapped up in the privatistic pursuit of profit, possessions, and pleasure – many of any of whom come to disappointingly find that such a selfishly-lived, materialistically-driven existence is less than fulfilling at a deep level. Such egoistic individualists then turn to various unhealthy form of escapism and faux fulfillment to self-medicate the gnawing ache of their "inner void". You can read about the sociological ill-effects of this in the morning newspaper of any big city (and many small towns), you know, rampant drug addiction and the criminality it fuels. The spiritual vapidity of the lives of the solipsistically self-interested citizens of capitalist societies is the true, underlying cause of a host of their troubles.

Of course not only is the existential lot of modern man under capitalism less than spiritually satisfying, it's also painfully less than materially comfortable and secure. For in a system of individual competition, for whatever reasons, not every individual is going to fare well, this is another fact of life that capitalism unwisely and callously does not take account of and compassionately adjust for. That is, in a system based on the principle of "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost", there are just way too many folks who are going to be found in the hindmost socioeconomic demographics of society. Too many folks who don't have enough to live in a fashion consistent with the intrinsic sacredness of life and the inalienable right to dignity of human beings. Too many folks who are subjected to gross miscarriages of social justice and the criminal greed of those at the top of the societal food chain. Too many socially damned members of the human family.

Moreover, the self-aggrandizing and ruthless individualism promoted by the narcissistic ethos of capitalism primes it to be a system that allows alpha individuals to rise to economic preeminence and dominance. A dominance which they then use to utterly subvert and do away with any fairness and meritocracy that's theoretically supposed to inhere in the capitalist order of things; and to systematically exploit, victimize, and pauperize working-class men and women whose labor produces the wealth they voraciously expropriate.

And the closer a society approaches the free-marketeer's theoretical beau ideal of private enterprise and ownership, the more of an exploitive and greed-ruled system capitalism devolves into. The more of a baronial system you end up with! Say what?! What do I mean by baronial? Well, think of the way the laissez-faire and unregulated individualism of the wild, wild West permitted not a meritocracy of small homesteaders but rather the rise to dominance of land barons and alpha ranchers who came to monopolize vast tracts of acreage. And who commonly employed heavy-handed and deadly methods to attain and maintain their wealth, such as hiring gunmen to enforce their will and rule, as well as co-opting town sheriffs and political officials.

Then, of course, in industrial sectors of the less governmentally-fettered economy of the 1800s you had the so-called robber barons (Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, et al), whose unabashed avarice took them to the pinnacle of capitalist success, where they used their money-power to rig the game for themselves, to the disadvantage of capitalism's smaller players and proletarian pawns.

I won't even go off on a digression about the virtual gangsterism practiced by the heroes of American economic history in the more ruggedly individualistic 19th century; about the way the greater liberty that men of big business were at to have discontent workers and union activists literally beaten down, sometimes at the hands of police acting as their private thugs, made a malicious mockery of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and vaunted "free market forces". In short, a system, such as "free-market" capitalism, that proposes to give permissive, licentious freedom to the unenlightened individualism and will-to-dominance that lurks in the reptilian recesses of our brains is a profoundly corruptible system indeed, one that will invariably be corrupted into precisely what we have today, a predatory and plutocratic power structure that leaves billions, with a B, at home and in the Third World, cold and hungry and powerless.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:19:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

To recap, this is what we get when we opt, as a civilization, for an economic system predicated upon excessive, morally and spiritually shallow, selfish individualism. The sort of libertarian socialism that I advocate as an alternative is not at all a chilling philosophy of soulless statists and social engineers who wish to craft a technocratic tyranny in which everyone's path in life is prefabricated from the cradle to the grave, with not a moment of free choice in between. I don't fancy living in such a society any more than you-all do, but neither do I fancy living under the ferally dog-eat-dog system that is free-market capitalism, nor under the tyranny of the tycoons and titans of the corporatocracy that will inexorably take form. The preferable third way is a system of equally shared resources, equally shared ownership of the means of productions, and equally shared power, all through the direct-democratic public administration of each of us.

To oversimplify it, "free market" capitalism would inevitable equal the rule of capitalist fat cats, and libertarian socialism equals the rule of all the people, hopefully with wisdom and liberty and justice for all. Of course this won't always be the case with flawed human beings, but we'll enjoy more liberty and justice under our own rule than we will if we choose a system that allows successful capitalists, with all their dangerous character flaws, to run the show for us.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:28:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A typo correction, the following sentence contains a sloppy typo:

"Ours is a society full of atomized individuals wrapped up in the privatistic pursuit of profit, possessions, and pleasure – many of any of whom come to disappointingly find that such a selfishly-lived, materialistically-driven existence is less than fulfilling at a deep level."

Of course it should read:

Ours is a society full of atomized individuals wrapped up in the privatistic pursuit of profit, possessions, and pleasure – many of whom come to disappointingly find that such a selfishly-lived, materialistically-driven existence is less than fulfilling at a deep level.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, I for one humbly but strenuously beg to disagree that an anti-libertarian statist system is the catastrophic anticlimax that all socialist thinking unavoidably leads to.
Sentences like this, which should be implied by your arguments anyway, are the reason people don't read your posts, Charles. A whole lot of words that have no reason to be there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:10:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for your anarcho-communism.

I'm gonna start a business. How ya gonna stop me without an archy?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:11:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
anyway, there is no such thing as "the people." There is you, there is me, there ain't no unum up in this pluribus.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 9:10:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:18:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
An Open Letter to Cody_Franklin and All the Pro-Capitalists at this Site

It seems that the philosophical undercurrent of your thinking gravitates toward, or emanates from a fearful skepticism about the state's lack of potential for benevolence, and its oft demonstrated high potential for transgressing against its citizens' liberties and interests.

Nah, I just don't give into the "fatal conceit"
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:25:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:18:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
An Open Letter to Cody_Franklin and All the Pro-Capitalists at this Site

It seems that the philosophical undercurrent of your thinking gravitates toward, or emanates from a fearful skepticism about the state's lack of potential for benevolence, and its oft demonstrated high potential for transgressing against its citizens' liberties and interests. Yes, I'm afraid that your darksome conception of the societal agenda of leftists, and of the futuristic, socially-engineered state they supposedly have in store for us is somewhat Orwellian. You seem to cynically take it for granted that some kind of dystopian nightmare is the only and the inexorable outcome of what you consider to be the left's progressive pipedream of social justice for all.

The problem isn't exactly fearful skepticism. Though it's certainly possible for states to end up being Orwellian nightmares, this isn't so much the problem I have with expanding state power under the guise of benevolence. What I have a problem with, fundamentally, is not only the coercion necessary to achieve state goals, but also the massive economic problems that state intervention presents which could be rectified by freeing up markets. There are also interesting philosophical dilemmas, like the special pleading for a monopoly on force and arbitration within an ideology that condemns the free market for producing coercive monopolies, but that's a story for another time, I imagine.

Well, I for one humbly but strenuously beg to disagree that an anti-libertarian statist system is the catastrophic anticlimax that all socialist thinking unavoidably leads to. Brace yourself and prepare to revise your misconceptions of me, because I'm about to drop a bombshell on them. I am not at all some sort of "statist" socialist, in actuality I'm more of an anarcho-communist. As some of you are already well aware, I'm quite anti-capitalist and advocate socialist remedies for our society's socioeconomic ills. However, the ultimate form of social organization that I would like to see society aspire toward is decidedly not an overly bureaucratized, Big Brotherly socialist system, but one in which all property and power is communalized, in which the whole public sphere of life, i.e. both the political and economic spheres are controlled by the people themselves through the application of authentically participatory, direct democracy (you know, democracy unvitiated by the ole business-political complex).

Duly noted, then. I'll have to make arguments against direct democracy and AnCom-ism, and for private property, which I think I can do. Thanks for letting me know, though I sort of suspected it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:18:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
Such a society ideally would be divided into small social units, locally manageable by their members, and linked with other units into an interdependent and cooperative league of communities. One that recognizes the fundamental and liberating life-truth, that no living organism is an island unto itself, that everyone and thing exists and operates within a mutually dependent and creative matrix, and that individuals must go along with the ontologically deep mutuality of this matrix to get along.

That's what the free market is for. In fact, it's precisely because self-sufficient atomism is so difficult that markets become both necessary and beneficial.

Which is all to say that in my view the best form and arrangement of society would be one that reflects the creative cosmic modus operandi of life's inherent fruitfulness, bounty, and splendorous potential coming into actualization through the unified diversity of all things. That is, we need to embrace e pluribus unum as more than a mere motto, we need to structure its sublime spirit into the politico-economic morphology and status quo of our nation and world.

There's not really much incentive for an egoist to join that society, is there?

Alas though, the excessive economic individualism of capitalism, it's advocacy of self-interest as the chief guiding principle of economics and life, grievously errs on the side of an unbalanced emphasis on the diversity-individuality part of the equation.

All actions are necessarily selfishly motivated, though. Whenever a person acts, he always has the achievement of some goal in mind, which in turn presupposes some expectation of a value to be achieved. Trying to make arguments about "selfless action" are inherently self-contradicting. Additionally, I would inquire as to what the criterion for "excessive" is. How is that determined? Do you decide? Do I? Do people vote on it?

The cruel consequences of this out-of-balance, out-of-whack emphasis are all around us today. Ours is a society full of atomized individuals wrapped up in the privatistic pursuit of profit, possessions, and pleasure – many of any of whom come to disappointingly find that such a selfishly-lived, materialistically-driven existence is less than fulfilling at a deep level. Such egoistic individualists then turn to various unhealthy form of escapism and faux fulfillment to self-medicate the gnawing ache of their "inner void". You can read about the sociological ill-effects of this in the morning newspaper of any big city (and many small towns), you know, rampant drug addiction and the criminality it fuels. The spiritual vapidity of the lives of the solipsistically self-interested citizens of capitalist societies is the true, underlying cause of a host of their troubles.

That's not a criticism of capitalism or of private self-indulgence. People simply don't understand how to enjoy a lot of material comforts. They buy big cars, fancy houses, beautiful women, but not for themselves primarily--rather, it is done for the approval of other people. This is the nature of the problem. People aren't living for their own enjoyment, but are instead staking the legitimacy of their existence on the approval and sanction of other individuals, which prevents them from properly enjoying the freedom of a new vehicle, the beautiful view from a house near the beach, or the mind-blowing amount of information at their fingertips whenever they hook their new computer to the internet. Their problem, then, doesn't come from the absence of deeper enjoyments (though some people are content seeking those out, and I have no problem with that)--it comes from a lack of comprehension about to be successfully selfish.

Of course not only is the existential lot of modern man under capitalism less than spiritually satisfying, it's also painfully less than materially comfortable and secure. For in a system of individual competition, for whatever reasons, not every individual is going to fare well, this is another fact of life that capitalism unwisely and callously does not take account of and compassionately adjust for. That is, in a system based on the principle of "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost", there are just way too many folks who are going to be found in the hindmost socioeconomic demographics of society. Too many folks who don't have enough to live in a fashion consistent with the intrinsic sacredness of life and the inalienable right to dignity of human beings. Too many folks who are subjected to gross miscarriages of social justice and the criminal greed of those at the top of the societal food chain. Too many socially damned members of the human family.

This is merely the same tired argument we've had in several threads, now, which boils down to my claims that A) the status quo is not capitalism; B) compassion is not a sensible basis for economics; C) the degree of economic freedom in the United States is directly proportional to the degree of prosperity we enjoy--even the "poor" in this country are an extremely wealthy poor, the majority possessing things like running water, central heat/air, TV, internet, satellite/cable, appliances like refrigerators, microwaves, washers/dryers, and cars; D) there is no reason to believe that 1) life is intrinsically sacred, or that 2) dignity is an "inherent human right"; E) "social justice" is a legitimate concept.

Moreover, the self-aggrandizing and ruthless individualism promoted by the narcissistic ethos of capitalism primes it to be a system that allows alpha individuals to rise to economic preeminence and dominance. A dominance which they then use to utterly subvert and do away with any fairness and meritocracy that's theoretically supposed to inhere in the capitalist order of things; and to systematically exploit, victimize, and pauperize working-class men and women whose labor produces the wealth they voraciously expropriate.

This is just based on the labor theory of value, which was abandoned a long time ago in economics, and empty anti-capitalist rhetoric, which emphasizes style over substance, and therefore makes no positive argument, satisfying itself with vague claims about hazy evils committed by agents in a free market.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:18:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
And the closer a society approaches the free-marketeer's theoretical beau ideal of private enterprise and ownership, the more of an exploitive and greed-ruled system capitalism devolves into. The more of a baronial system you end up with! Say what?! What do I mean by baronial? Well, think of the way the laissez-faire and unregulated individualism of the wild, wild West permitted not a meritocracy of small homesteaders but rather the rise to dominance of land barons and alpha ranchers who came to monopolize vast tracts of acreage. And who commonly employed heavy-handed and deadly methods to attain and maintain their wealth, such as hiring gunmen to enforce their will and rule, as well as co-opting town sheriffs and political officials.

Rather than explaining that the myth of the violent, lawless "Wild West" was actually a pretty decent semi-example of what an AnCap society might look like (not so wild after all), I'll simply refer you to a couple of articles that give a good explanation that saves me the trouble of typing it all up:

http://mises.org...
https://mises.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Then, of course, in industrial sectors of the less governmentally-fettered economy of the 1800s you had the so-called robber barons (Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, et al), whose unabashed avarice took them to the pinnacle of capitalist success, where they used their money-power to rig the game for themselves, to the disadvantage of capitalism's smaller players and proletarian pawns.

Actually, since Rockefeller is always pictured as one of the biggest "robber barons", you mind find Sieben's analysis helpful [http://www.debate.org...].

I won't even go off on a digression about the virtual gangsterism practiced by the heroes of American economic history in the more ruggedly individualistic 19th century; about the way the greater liberty that men of big business were at to have discontent workers and union activists literally beaten down, sometimes at the hands of police acting as their private thugs, made a malicious mockery of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and vaunted "free market forces". In short, a system, such as "free-market" capitalism, that proposes to give permissive, licentious freedom to the unenlightened individualism and will-to-dominance that lurks in the reptilian recesses of our brains is a profoundly corruptible system indeed, one that will invariably be corrupted into precisely what we have today, a predatory and plutocratic power structure that leaves billions, with a B, at home and in the Third World, cold and hungry and powerless.

The point is that anarcho-capitalism not only A) separates government and business, but also B) gets rid of the government entirely, making the whole notion of political privilege a non-problem. It's as though you're assuming capitalism necessitates use of government action to stay afloat when, in reality, it's government playing around in the economy at the behest of corporate titans that capitalists say hampers free markets.

The conclusion is located directly below
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:19:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

To recap, this is what we get when we opt, as a civilization, for an economic system predicated upon excessive, morally and spiritually shallow, selfish individualism. The sort of libertarian socialism that I advocate as an alternative is not at all a chilling philosophy of soulless statists and social engineers who wish to craft a technocratic tyranny in which everyone's path in life is prefabricated from the cradle to the grave, with not a moment of free choice in between. I don't fancy living in such a society any more than you-all do, but neither do I fancy living under the ferally dog-eat-dog system that is free-market capitalism, nor under the tyranny of the tycoons and titans of the corporatocracy that will inexorably take form.

You do realize that corporatocracy can't surface in a free market, right? Corporations are legal products of state intervention, and a lot of the problems that allow for the creation of monopolies, e.g. patents and copyrights, will be eradicated with abolition of the state via the abolition of intellectual property as a legal institution.

The preferable third way is a system of equally shared resources, equally shared ownership of the means of productions, and equally shared power, all through the direct-democratic public administration of each of us.

There are plenty of objections that I could make there: philosophically untenable, drop in the quality of life/provision of services, lack of economic/psychological incentive for anyone who isn't a collectivist-altruist, problems with democracy and tyranny, and so on.

To oversimplify it, "free market" capitalism would inevitable equal the rule of capitalist fat cats, and libertarian socialism equals the rule of all the people, hopefully with wisdom and liberty and justice for all. Of course this won't always be the case with flawed human beings, but we'll enjoy more liberty and justice under our own rule than we will if we choose a system that allows successful capitalists, with all their dangerous character flaws, to run the show for us.

The problem is that you can't avoid markets just because your ideology is different. You can maybe establish a commune where those kinds of rules are followed, but, unless you're actively using force against people, which would return us to the problems of statism and economic calculation, you can't avoid the emergence of markets, people wanting to own businesses, etc.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 10:15:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, we certainly disagree at a very fundamental level about a great many things. And just as you perhaps find many of my views to be incorrigibly subjective and illogical, I find some of yours to be profoundly chilling. Nevertheless, you know how to disagree in a mature, civil, and intellectual fashion, and for that I respect you. Kudos to Cody!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 10:27:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 11:38:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

The problem is that you can't avoid markets just because your ideology is different. You can maybe establish a commune where those kinds of rules are followed, but, unless you're actively using force against people, which would return us to the problems of statism and economic calculation, you can't avoid the emergence of markets, people wanting to own businesses, etc.

You can use force without a state.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 10:37:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 10:27:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/23/2011 11:38:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

The problem is that you can't avoid markets just because your ideology is different. You can maybe establish a commune where those kinds of rules are followed, but, unless you're actively using force against people, which would return us to the problems of statism and economic calculation, you can't avoid the emergence of markets, people wanting to own businesses, etc.

You can use force without a state.

Obviously. But the point is that the kind of force he would have to employ to maintain social homeostasis in an anarcho-communist society would actually equate to a state. The point which you allow for competing uses of force/arbitration to maintain order, you have a market, which defeats the purpose of trying to be communistic. :P
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 10:39:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 10:15:20 PM, charleslb wrote:
Well, we certainly disagree at a very fundamental level about a great many things. And just as you perhaps find many of my views to be incorrigibly subjective and illogical, I find some of yours to be profoundly chilling. Nevertheless, you know how to disagree in a mature, civil, and intellectual fashion, and for that I respect you. Kudos to Cody!

Well, I'd like to think that we don't have to act antagonistic simply because we're ideological archenemies.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 11:24:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 10:39:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Well, I'd like to think that we don't have to act antagonistic simply because we're ideological archenemies.

Agreed! But, alas, you're one of the few in your camp with the maturity to hold and practice this enlightened attitude. Which I say not to disparage all libertarians, I'm just speaking from my personal experience of being targeted for personal attacks and mockery by most libertarian responders to my posts.

No, believe it or not, I have no malice toward libertarians as individual and multi-dimensional human beings, to each of whom there's more than just their ideological commitment to misguided free-marketarianism and the twisted theory that society should be explicitly predicated upon the anti-principle of nakedly unaltruistic self-interest. I merely find libertarianism to be a philosophy that's dangerously paradoxical in regard to cynically holding that all human beings are entirely driven by utterly asocial self-interest, and at the same time maintaining the naïve view that a viable socioeconomic system can be based on the total unfettering of what they propound to be man's nature of virtually sociopathic economic individualism. Yes, libertarianism is a strange mixture of cynicism and naïveté that I don't think too highly of, but, again, this doesn't mean that I have contempt for libertarians as people. If I've given the impression that I do, I apologize, to the entire libertarian clique here. And thanks again, Cody, for being more pleasant to disagree with than the rest of your ideological comrades.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.