Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

booktv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#81

Post by anoncowherd »

icebraining wrote: post #77
anoncowherd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone.

Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc.

There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#82

Post by peterwwillis »

klez wrote: post #78
peterwwillis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can you spread information if there's a huge barrier in front of you?

Most people don't want to change their carefully-guarded vision of the world around them. If they already associate your movement with imagery of chaotic lawlessness they're not going to stop and listen to you on the off chance they might be misinformed. They're going to write you off immediately and go on with their life.

On the other hand, if you make a compromise and reform your presentation of ideas in a new way, people will be more likely to stop and listen. It's not enough to simply have a good idea; you have to sell it to them, too.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#83

Post by goshakkk »

anoncowherd wrote: post #81
icebraining wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyon…

All good, but even though Rothbard mentions it, this theory of property is actually Lockean, not Rothbardian. [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#84

Post by eli_gottlieb »

anoncowherd wrote: post #72
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, the simple fact is, empirical studies of minimum wages just don't show their having a macroeconomic effect on employment that overwhelms other effects. Neither do empirical studies on basic income experiments show them overwhelming other economic effects when it comes to "efficiency" (if you don't want your statement to be tautological, you need to define efficiency as something other than "that which the market does", by the way), employment, or anything else.

So basically, you're preaching from a pulpit of pure theory and ideology, while I'm down here saying that you need to provide empirical proof and can't, and I'm not the one making a claim of global optimality.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#85

Post by eli_gottlieb »

anoncowherd wrote: post #70
loopdoend wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to protect property is by force. At that point you're talking about imposing your concept of your property on others. To me that sounds immoral, but I am not an "anarcho-capitalist".

Property can only be defended (by force) after someone tries to take it from you. The aggressor is immoral.

No, property is defined by force. Without force, it becomes the commons. If you plant an apple orchard and leave it alone, and someone takes an apple, that's improving the commons. If you plant an apple orchard, and someone takes an apple, and you shoot him, then we've got private property.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#86

Post by eli_gottlieb »

anoncowherd wrote: post #81
icebraining wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyon…

>The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people

Well no. If we're talking about capitalist property, it's between a single individual and the entire rest of the human race at once. Or, if we want to be realistic, it's between an individual and anyone in shooting distance of that individual.

>Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour

No, it works to the favor of property owners and creditors (who are, essentially, fractional property-owners in people).

>imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property

Since the entire world is thus privatized, this "one simple trick!" becomes totalitarian.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#87

Post by javert »

anoncowherd wrote: post #80
javert wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fundamenta…

You're not actually giving an intellectual argument, for the most part. You're just... "erm"... asserting the opposite of what I said in a hand-wavy manner.

What is profoundly immoral is condemning everyone to barbarism via a system that will lead to massive rights violations, which is what you are proposing.

I don't actually need my neat little trick. Even before I realized the truth in that, I advocated for the minimal necessary taxation, in order to otherwise establish a rights-protecting society. That is the practical thing to do, and therefore it is the moral thing to do.

You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral. It is a floating conception (i.e. it cannot be induced from or reduced to reality).

> Otherwise everyone is a threat all the time, and that's just not a rational idea, is it?

Yes, it is a rational idea. In a state of nature, everyone is a threat to everyone.

> But you rationalize it with that neat little trick that actually falls on its face right away, upon closer inspection.

Come on man, I'm not a moron. The idea doesn't fall on its face. That is just an assertion you are making.

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#88

Post by tokenizer »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #85
anoncowherd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property can only be defended (by force) after someone tries to take it from you. The aggressor is immoral.

No, property is defined by force. Without force, it becomes the commons. If you plant an apple orchard and leave it alone, and someone takes an apple, that's improving the commons. If you plant an apple orchard, and someone takes an apple, and you shoot him , then we've got private property.

But can't we simply compromise and have public means of production with private residential property? As a libertarian socialist this seems like the best way to move past this debate until we implement such a system. I agree with your point, but I'd rather not expound the hypotheticals containing a married couple and child, being visited in the night by some unrelated teens who feel it is their right to sleep in the same room and said couple's child. Your thoughts?

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#89

Post by sanoli »

anoncowherd wrote: post #37
sanoli wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.

You're overlooking a couple of important things here: 1) Public education is shit anyway, and mostly just meant to indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism. 2) Private schools would do a vastly better job, for a small fraction of the price. I'm sure you agree on public schools being bad quality, to put it mildly. You might not agree on the indoctrination aspect, but hey, if we want to change things for the better, we…

But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?

Re: Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

#90

Post by tokenizer »

goshakkk wrote: post #43
sanoli wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.

Yes, public education & health care are immoral because they are funded through means of coercion. Helping the poor is a noble end, but even noble ends can't justify violent means. It does not matter how fair theft seems to the recipient of the services that are funded in such a way, it's still theft. It is cool that you care about the unfortunate ones though. You are not alone in that — most people do, too. If we go…

This is the main issue between left and right minded anarchists IMO. I've felt like both sides have been right at different times in my life.

That said, you are right. Taxes of any kind, if forced, is theft. If liberal minded individuals can't offer me a voluntary way to function from within society, than they'll be considered authoritarians to me. The only solution I can think of is a type of confederacy of anarchist collectives, where all collectives agree on basic freedoms (freedom to travel, freedom to leave, completely fair representation, etc) where some are bastions of socialism, and the other bastions of individualism.

The only problem I have as a right leaning anarchist with anarcho-capitalism, is wage labour. While I agree that the contract may be voluntary, the conditions leading to it may not have been, and we see exploitation in our current system regarding this, with some people becoming indentured servants.

Post reply on HN