Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of anarchism. It seems difficult to debate undefined ideas.
Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
71–80 of 145 posts
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to refute my minimum wage example for starters. Here's another: 1) you want to help the poor 2) you confiscate wealth from other people, and give it to the poor 3) you have just removed money from the economy and caused it to get used much less efficiently than it would have, and demotivated lots of people from doing business and producing value to the world at large.
No, you're not getting this. Claims require evidence. Non-claims do not require evidence. If you want to claim that minarcho-capitalism is the optimal social and economic system, such that anything else is downright immoral and wrong by comparison, then you have to justify that claim using evidence. In contrast, I do not have to justify my position that no ideology or system being proposed today is globally optimal.…
So you disregard my examples, declare that I need to "prove" things, and then proceed to tell me that you don't. Have a good day, Sir.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursui…
When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.
A "decentralized collective society" seems contradictory. I can't tell what you mean.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#74Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of anarchism. It seems difficult to debate undefined ideas.
He starts out by saying that Anarchism is a truism. That is, we by default live in Anarchism and cannot escape it.
Then perhaps the discussion is really about what the world should be like in the future. If the discussion brings together Anarcho-* of all sorts to dismantle the current regime, it would be time well spent.
In the very least he helps us disassemble the (often conflicting) definitions so that we can better understand the origins and biases, thereby allowing us to reason more clearly about our reality.
But yeah, I get your point.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#75Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is that he does not speak for all anarchists, just like the idea in the book I read doesn't either.
I'm not sure I get your point. He doesn't need to speak for all anarchists. He just needs to speak clearly. If he advocated "collectivism fully devolved to the local level" (which I think is what he advocates, right?) it would be much more clear, and he would not be peddling a contradiction. "Anarchism" contradicts with the thing I just described, which is still a government and/or power structure.
Yes you are right, it is better to speak clearly rather than apply too general and broad labels.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."
That may be, but people are not property. Or, well.. should not be.
You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property is a set of obligations imposed on people, not things. Much like the social contract.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the analogy's spot on, but that it /does/ diminish the original meaning. Eg, I don't call myself a 'hacker' around people who aren't geeks because I know it will be misinterpreted, and additionally people who think that definition is a good thing will want to associate with me.
This gets round to the comment I wanted to make about the whole topic: Anarchism is a word that closes people's minds and should not be used to try to promote some better system of organization or community. Can you imagine people trying to encourage community and a family unit by trying to bring back Skinhead culture? Try as you might to explain its positive, non-racial origins, people just associate it with neo-naz…
Maybe I'm only biased because I only know 'real' anarchists and 'real' skin-heads, so when I hear these terms I don't think about the negative connotation.
Still I think the right way to overcome this is spreading information, not changing name.
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices made under duress (starvation vs. sweatshop, expensive medication vs. death, etc) On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction.…
>> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade. >> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and viol…
We should also be careful to distinguish an exchange in a positive-currency, vs one in a debt-currency, which by definition is a trade of indebtedness. Can you really have a "voluntary" exchange of indebtedness?
No, no, no. We do not agree intuitively on what property is. What about a factory that you built with your own hands that becomes a utility for a community? At some point, your private property and private creations become integral to a community, and that's where things become muddy.
I want to add, lastly, that if we have a true competition of non-debt currency, we may have part of a solution. I have some thoughts written on my blog post, but it's not well thought out and perhaps somebody can build upon it.
http://jaekwon.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-supernova-theory...
Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
> Your profile looks like you're an objectivist I have my own philosophy, induced from reality, which (conveniently enough) corresponds to Objectivism (since they both use a logical methodology). > But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. Correct, and I can make a number of arguments against anarchy. That is just the simplest and most clever I have run up against other than "It's contradi…
>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force
Therein lies the problem. Governments are based on initiatory force - extortion, to be accurate. We all pay taxes because we know we'll be forcibly hauled to jail if we don't, and our property will be seized from us. Taxation itself is immoral, and since all governments are based on taxation, all governments are immoral.
>> The fundamental cause is the natural threat of those that would violate rights
So I guess I'm allowed to initiate erm.. retaliatory force against you, because you might want to violate my rights, or.. how does this work? :P
There is no threat before someone threatens you. Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it? You're aware that taxation is based on (initiatory) force, and thus immoral. But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.