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

101–110 of 145 posts

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

#101

Post by anoncowherd »

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.

>> No, property is defined by force.

Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?

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

#102

Post by anoncowherd »

sanoli wrote: post #89
anoncowherd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Private schools, that teach exactly what the market wants them to teach. This would not include Patriotic indoctrination though, for example.

Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.

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

#103

Post by jheriko »

tokenizer wrote: post #16
jheriko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know... Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.

Again, this is about the political theory of anarchism not the mainstream definition connoting chaos. Thanks for championing debate against your parent post, but to say they make an accurate description of a philosophy that challenged Franco in Catalonia, is one of the most anti-war philosophies out there, AND one of the only political philosophies that don't agree with our current structural narratives and attempts…

i do think that in a pedantic way he is right - you can never do away with government if you define it in that way. i'm just not sure what the value of such an observation is...

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

#104

Post by eli_gottlieb »

anoncowherd wrote: post #101
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> No, property is defined by force. Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?

>Or, it's defined by property rights?

Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please.

Oh, wait, it's your gun.

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

#105

Post by sanoli »

anoncowherd wrote: post #102
sanoli wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Private schools, that teach exactly what the market wants them to teach. This would not include Patriotic indoctrination though, for example. Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting ? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.

And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important?

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

#106

Post by anoncowherd »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #104
anoncowherd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> No, property is defined by force. Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?

>Or, it's defined by property rights? Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please. Oh, wait, it's your gun.

Rights are an idea.

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

#107

Post by anoncowherd »

sanoli wrote: post #105
anoncowherd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private schools, that teach exactly what the market wants them to teach. This would not include Patriotic indoctrination though, for example. Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting ? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.

And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important?

It's everyone's own personal choice what they want to learn, if anything. Everyone's responsible for their choices, and marketable skills can be acquired through experience and practice, even without any particular schooling.

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

#108

Post by anoncowherd »

javert wrote: post #87
anoncowherd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 min…

>> 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.

OK, here's what you said earlier: >>> I think the government should use retaliatory force, never initiatory force.

But government is based on the initiation of force in taxation. Without taxes, there is no government, and without the threat of violence inflicted on you for attempting to keep your property, there is no taxation. That is immoral, plain and simple. It's extortion.

>>> Preventing alternate defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist idea) and levying taxes for the proper functions of government (police, courts, and military) actually are retaliatory exercises of force, not initiated force.

Who are they "retaliating" against? If A initiates against B, is B then allowed to "retaliate" against C?

>>> The threat of initiated force is tantamount to initiated force. So, retaliatory force to stop a threat is legitimate.

We agree on the first part, but who exactly is government retaliating against when taxing people? Remember, an individual is free to live all his life without aggressing against anyone, but if he doesn't give up his money to the government, then the government will aggress against him. Where's the retaliation in that? -Nowhere, that's where. It's simply clearly the initiation of force against an individual, even if he's never hurt anyone ever.

>> You cannot justify the claim that taxation is immoral

I already did, see above.

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

My point was that you can't both be sane, and "retaliate" against people who have not initiated against you. The possibility that someone, somewhere might want to violate your rights, does not make your force a retaliation if you're just aggressing against somone who's never done anything to you.

If A never actually initiates against anyone (regardless of any perceived/imagined willingness to do so), can B then "retaliate" against C? -That's roughly the idea you presented before.

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

#109

Post by tokenizer »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #95
tokenizer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions . So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most har…

Agreed. I've always been a proponent of dual power reformation. We need to definitely move towards having more "commons" and less "Owned by PLC INC".

That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned.

But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.

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

#110

Post by tokenizer »

loopdoend wrote: post #99
tokenizer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you remove the loaded language in "private residential property" and rephrase as simply "residence", i.e. your residence where you are living, then we aren't talking about property as a means of production , which is where the sticking point is. Your residence is your possession , and you have every right to privacy.

That was my interpretation of what anoncowherd meant. To me, anarcho-capitalists are necessary for reformist action that can expand rights and fight coercion. Any arguments for the abolishment of wage slavery can and should be had, but lets not forget that we're able to discuss that issue, which seems to be the biggest sticking point between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists.

That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.

Post reply on HN