Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Cythraul]

Pretty sure I got that dude Death Aflame to agree that anarchism is very much a "pipe dream" before and he was super into it so... yeah.

I'm not sure what you mean by the claim that anarchism is a pipe dream. You could mean either that there will very likely never be an anarchist society of the sort envisioned or you could mean that if there were such a society it would very likely not work out (whatever that would mean). It's understandable why one would accept the former claim (even though it's argued that various forms of anarchism have been instantiated in the past, with decidedly non-disastrous results). The latter claim I flat out disagree with, though it's true that the issue is still controversial. Anyway, why should I care whether or not Death Aflame agreed with you on that point? (no offense to Death Aflame)

edit: also just because you think long and hard about something doesn't mean it's right or even very smart or possible

That's true but I neither claimed nor implied otherwise. The comment you're alluding to was made in response to your claim about the people who advocate anarchism and libertarianism.

edit2: if there are rules and order, it's not anarchism...then anarchism is just a catchy buzzword for another kind of democracy, essentially a version like the one in the US but better in every way as far as I can tell, which, sorry, is impossible due to human nature and human error

Wrong. You're making use of a popular misconception of what anarchism is. In the context of academic discussion of anarchism, anarchy is the absence of the State/government authority, not the absence of rules or order.

 

[Einherjar86]

You clearly don't understand what libertarian political philosophy is all about. Libertarianism is a doctrine about what the State should be allowed to do (and some versions concern whether the State should exist at all). It can take either a deontological or a consequentialist position on the issue. This is moralizing. It clearly presupposes that we can investigate and say true things about the morality of the State. The theoretical foundations of libertarianism have nothing to do with what you're describing.

Ease up. Libertarianism as a philosophical ideal means the maximizing of individual liberty; this, by necessity, requires a certain limitation (ideally, the complete neglect) of the influence of all ethics, morals and values on an individual's decision-making process. Libertarians do what is ultimately to their own advantage; this requires a suspension of moral values, as they hinder the ability of the individual to act in his or her best interest.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You realise you initally said disbelief in all morals and values, which contradicts libertarian philosophy since obviously there is something that is valued (i.e. individual freedom). You seem to have changed your argument by now, but initially it was definitely wrong.

 

[Einherjar86]

All philosophy is contradiction. Libertarianism requires nihilistic tendencies in order to prosper; neglect for the welfare of others so that an individual might act in his or her own interest.

Libertarianism preaches the right of an individual to do whatever he or she wants; but in actuality those who practice it only believe in their own right to do whatever they want. There is no such thing as the "value" of individual liberty, because such a value is paradoxical.

 

[Cythraul]

Ease up. Libertarianism as a philosophical ideal means the maximizing of individual liberty; this, by necessity, requires a certain limitation (ideally, the complete neglect) of the influence of all ethics, morals and values on an individual's decision-making process.

Nonsense. This would only be true if the libertarian ideal were a state of affairs in which people were allowed to do absolutely anything they want. But this is clearly not the case, and you would know that if you were familiar with actual work on libertarian theory. All libertarians recognize moral constraints on action.

Libertarians do what is ultimately to their own advantage; this requires a suspension of moral values, as they hinder the ability of the individual to act in his or her best interest.

More nonsense. You're confusing libertarianism with some kind of egoism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nonsense. This would only be true if the libertarian ideal were a state of affairs in which people were allowed to do absolutely anything they want. But this is clearly not the case, and you would know that if you were familiar with actual work on libertarian theory. All libertarians recognize moral constraints on action.

This is how libertarianism in America is understood (as I stated in my first post). This is not how Libertarianism, in its ideal state, is defined.

More nonsense. You're confusing libertarianism with some kind of egoism.

Libertarianism requires egoism.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That's true but I neither claimed nor implied otherwise. The comment you're alluding to was made in response to your claim about the people who advocate anarchism and libertarianism.

Actually, I think your post does imply that "since they have thought about it more, they are closer to the truth". I don't necessarily agree. But I digress...

Wrong. You're making use of a popular misconception of what anarchism is. In the context of academic discussion of anarchism, anarchy is the absence of the State/government authority, not the absence of rules or order.

From what I understand, rules and order derive nearly directly from the existence of a state, and thus naturally, without a centralized state, it is both impossible and infeasible to have an ordered society. Yes, this does assume people are not good at that whole behaving themselves thing, and I stand firmly by that. I don't think people are necessarily always bad, but rather that they have a tendency towards bad things when an ordered state is not there to create some system of law or rule.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

All philosophy is contradiction.

*facepalm*

Libertarianism preaches the right of an individual to do whatever he or she wants; but in actuality those who practice it only believe in their own right to do whatever they want. There is no such thing as the "value" of individual liberty, because such a value is paradoxical.

Actually it's more like "whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else". I think I know what you're getting at with individual liberty being a paradoxical concept, but I think you're still off-track. In the typical interpretation of libertarianism, one has the freedom to accumulate unlimited wealth, which can cause indirect harm to others, but those others still have the freedom to accumulate wealth of their own - they may merely lack the opportunity to.

 

[Einherjar86]

*facepalm*

That was me being unsucessfully clever.

Actually it's more like "whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else". I think I know what you're getting at with individual liberty being a paradoxical concept, but I think you're still off-track. In the typical sense of libertarianism, one has the freedom to accumulate unlimited wealth, which can cause indirect harm to others, but those others still have the freedom to accumulate wealth of their own - they merely lack the opportunity to.

Ideal Libertarianism disregards the effects of any harm to others whatsoever. In a philosophy of maximum individualism, any choice people make cannot be weighed by its effects on others. Furthermore, the fact that people lack the opportunity to do as they please should also have no bearing on an individual's decision.

I just want to point out that I'm not a complete Libertarian, and I'm not trying to defend that philosophy; I just feel that modern conceptions of Libertarianism have been tainted by the idea that individual liberty is "valued." Ideally, it's not valued, merely seen as the most logical path.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ideal Libertarianism

Did you just make that term up?

disregards the effects of any harm to others whatsoever.

Which isn't the commonly accepted meaning of libertarianism, and not quite as interesting to debate about since it has virtually no relevance to the real world.

the fact that people lack the opportunity to do as they please should also have no bearing on an individual's decision.

Well I only brought that up because you seemed to be confusing "freedom" with "opportunity" in your last post. I think we can all agree that imbalances in opportunity are acceptable in whatever sort of libertarianism we might be discussing here.

I just want to point out that I'm not a complete Libertarian, and I'm not trying to defend that philosophy; I just feel that modern conceptions of Libertarianism have been tainted by the idea that individual liberty is "valued." Ideally, it's not valued, merely seen as the most logical path.

I still don't know what the hell you're talking about here. Individual liberty seems to me the entire appeal of libertarian philosophy. You have yet to explain how it is not (or should not be, or whatever you're trying to say) considered a value in libertarian philosophy, unless you only think living in a state of free-for-all anarchy is true libertarianism. But again, that's not a very interesting angle of discussion, and from the way you're talking you seem more interested in making up your own personal definition of libertarianism than in discussing actual libertarianism and its possible merits/flaws.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ozz asked why Libertarianism requires that people be nihilistic or anarchistic; I merely described the historical concept and reasoning for Libertarianism. It's not my own definition, it's what Libertarianism is. "Ideal Libertarianism" is not a term I made up; you can put the word "ideal" in front of any concept. All it implies is that the term be recognized/defined in its purest form.

I've been defending myself against Cyth's claims that I know nothing of what I speak. I've read about and studied Libertarianism in class, and I know that, traditionally, it sprung from an excess of logical Enlightenment thought. Merely because something presents itself as the most logical path does not mean that one has to value it, as you're suggesting.

I never meant to contribute to any previous discussion with the past few posts I made; I was only responding to people who were telling me that my response to Mike's inquiry was wrong.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Sorry about that - I guess libertarianism has been given several definitions over time, and one of those can be more or less synonymous with anarchism.

I still think the nihilism bit is pretty nonsensical. You haven't explained what makes maximising individual liberty logical, and the only basis I can think of for such a philosophy is that individual liberty is considered to have value. If it doesn't have value, what's the point of trying to maximise it? In fact, how can someone without any values form any goals to begin with? No possible outcome of his/her life should matter more than another in that situation.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's alright; sorry if I made too much out of this whole thing.

Rather than having value, I see it as merely the most beneficial choice to an individual. I suppose we may differ on our definition of what "value" constitutes, but I personally feel that one does not need to value something in order to accept it as the most logical choice.

For instance, people will act in self defense and perhaps kill someone who accosts them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they value killing. As far as Libertarianism is concerned, I believe that its practitioners can accept individual prosperity and freedom without attributing value to it. They merely believe that they aren't responsible for the consequences that come of their actions; therefore, to do as they please and that which benefits them the most is simply the logical and sensible thing to do.

 

[The Ozzman]

From what I understand, rules and order derive nearly directly from the existence of a state, and thus naturally, without a centralized state, it is both impossible and infeasible to have an ordered society. Yes, this does assume people are not good at that whole behaving themselves thing, and I stand firmly by that. I don't think people are necessarily always bad, but rather that they have a tendency towards bad things when an ordered state is not there to create some system of law or rule.

I think the whole thing behind the whole anarchy/libertarianism thing is that the libertarians don't mind a 'state' if the 'state' is voluntarily agreed upon by the society. That is, all rules, by-laws, guidelines, etc are agreed upon by all and without coercion.

I personally don't mind doing things as long as I'm not 'forced' to do it. There are tons of things we all are 'forced' to do, though (like paying taxes), so that could digress into another 4 pages of shit and I'm tired so BLERGH

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's alright; sorry if I made too much out of this whole thing.

Rather than having value, I see it as merely the most beneficial choice to an individual. I suppose we may differ on our definition of what "value" constitutes, but I personally feel that one does not need to value something in order to accept it as the most logical choice.

For instance, people will act in self defense and perhaps kill someone who accosts them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they value killing. As far as Libertarianism is concerned, I believe that its practitioners can accept individual prosperity and freedom without attributing value to it. They merely believe that they aren't responsible for the consequences that come of their actions; therefore, to do as they please and that which benefits them the most is simply the logical and sensible thing to do.

As imprecisely as you use terms like "logic" and "value", it would take inordinately long to finish this discussion off, but I think we've gotten far enough by now that we see where each other is coming from, so fuck it.

 

[Cythraul]

This is how libertarianism in America is understood (as I stated in my first post). This is not how Libertarianism, in its ideal state, is defined.

What on God's green Earth are you talking about? There is no useful distinction to be made between how libertarianism is defined in America and how it's defined in its "ideal state" (whatever the fuck that means). Libertarianism has never been what you think it is. And if there is some use of the term 'libertarian' that conforms to your conception of it, it's completely irrelevant because neither the modern libertarian movement nor its roots in classical liberalism has ever been, either in theory or practice, what you describe.

Libertarianism requires egoism.

No it does not! All that libertarianism requires is a proscription against aggression and interference with a certain kind of right. It has never involved as an essential part of the doctrine a view about whether one should act in one's own self-interest. You are deeply confused.

Actually, I think your post does imply that "since they have thought about it more, they are closer to the truth". I don't necessarily agree. But I digress...

You are confused. The whole point of my remark was to suggest that since the people in question have done their life's work on economics and political philosophy/theory it would be extremely ridiculous to suppose that they're ignorant about the subject matter you mentioned.

From what I understand, rules and order derive nearly directly from the existence of a state, and thus naturally, without a centralized state, it is both impossible and infeasible to have an ordered society.

You haven't made your case unless you can show that rules and order can't exist in the absence of government ordinarily construed. So what if it's true that law and order arises from government?

[Yes, this does assume people are not good at that whole behaving themselves thing, and I stand firmly by that.

So what? Anarchism generally does not involve the notion that we ought to sit back and just expect people to behave themselves.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So, there has to be some kind of power structure, correct? It will likely arise, in that case, from some kind of election or (also likely) one person or group who asserts power. Right?

I think we can argue over specific terminology and stuff like that forever but we will likely not agree on this tbh.

 

[Cythraul]

So, there has to be some kind of power structure, correct? It will likely arise, in that case, from some kind of election or (also likely) one person or group who asserts power. Right?

Not in the version of anarchism I subscribe to. It does not involve somebody just assuming power. It involves privatization of all roles played by government. It's very far from obvious that there needs to be a monopolistic institution that confiscates property in order for there to be law, order, protection, etc.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How do you propose, in your own words, this privatization of governmental roles, and how will it be possible to disallow the privatizing entity from getting "out of control", so to speak? That is, how is it made sure that said privatizing entity does not merely assume responsibility and take control in an un-anarchistic way?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, I'd really like to hear this as well. Especially some real-world examples that illustrate that it's even remotely feasible.