Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

I think I agree about some people losing the present because they are consumed with the past or future. I don't think this really has anything to do with technology though. It's part of the human condition.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say it's only part of a temporary condition of evolutionary biology. There's no reason to assume that the way we are now reflects some atemporal human condition. Where does "modern human" begin and "hominid" end? This circles back to the problem of consciousness itself, but there's no reason to think that the consciouness we currently possess (or occupy) is part of a human condition.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I like the idea of Accelerating Change -- that our intuitions about change are nonstop, we expect roughly as much change as has happened in the past over our own existence. Technological change seems to feed on itself and accelerates. Change today is faster than it was 100 years ago, which in turn is faster than it was 1000 years ago. Our recent past is not a reliable guide to how much change we should anticipate in the future.

 

[Zephyrus]

Mathematical, my dear Watson.

 

[Dak]

http://mises.org/daily/6222/Hegel-and-the-Romantic-Age

I see where the language Pat likes to use comes from. I'd be interested to know if he disagrees with this account.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I see where the language Pat likes to use comes from.

haha, yea, I just read Eins post on Take Shelter like this (This is basically what I look like when I read Ein or Zeph hahaha)

 

[Dak]

GIF gold

 

[Einherjar86]

http://mises.org/daily/6222/Hegel-and-the-Romantic-Age

I see where the language Pat likes to use comes from. I'd be interested to know if he disagrees with this account.

I think it's a wonderfully constructed, one-sided polemic that doesn't explain the reason for its condemnation of Romanticism because it knows its audience will agree with it.

It's a nonsubtle, rather superfluous reading, but a popular one. Summarizing Hegel's conception of the end of history as "the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness" is humorous, but misleading in that Rothbard never once uses the term "consciousness." His discussion of alienation and separateness appears directed by a certain physical understanding of alienation: "[...] until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob" and "In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic 'organism' of course, not the individual, will at last 'return home.'"

He uses Hegel's terminology in the second quote, but avoids explaining it. It would be useful for readers to know that this "oneness" Rothbard clearly abhors is the result not of nuclear fushion, but of a complex process of individual consciousnesses coming into contact with one another. Furthermore, Hegel nevers sees material entities such as the State or the Church as enforcing this oneness; their manifestation (in abstract ideal form) would merely be a result of this conscious interaction. The perfect state never arises for Hegel because the end of history he predicts never happens. Of course, there's a reason why it never happens: it's not possible. However, Rothbard's critique is misdirected, in my opinion.

Rothbard clearly eschews the idea of humanity as alienated, fragmented, a collection of incomplete subjects; I deduce this from his repetitive one-liners about this being a driving concern for the Romantics. Or, if he doesn't eschew the concept of alienation per se, he eschews the Romantic idea that it is brought about by division of labor, capitalism, industrialism, etc. He wants to suggest that the Romantics were incorrect from the get-go, that the conditions they see as bringing about this alienation and fragmentation, in fact, don't bring it about at all. The Romantic notion of revolution and unification is flawed because it rebels against the very ideals that Rothbard sees as ensuring human liberty.

In this sense, Rothbard is just as "romantic" as the Romantics. He maintains a concern for natural human liberties and believes that free markets would allow for the exercise of these liberties; in this way, human beings (without state regulation, importantly) could achieve a pure mode of being, unrestricted by coercive forces, in mutual exchange with one another.

The irony is, Rothbard never bothers to mention that, for Hegel, it is precisely from these conditions of individual consciousnesses freely interacting that the process of "unification", or whatever he wants to call it, inevitably arises. Competing individual consciousnesses inevitably results in power struggles, which in turn inevitably lead to inequality and disenfranchisement. Through this long historical process, Hegel claims that individuals subsequently encounter a series of crises and reformations; the teleology of his philosophy eventually culminates in the last reformation, the end of history.

I do not agree with Hegel; many philosophers today don't. But this doesn't mean the argumentative logic doesn't present interesting parameters for analysis, and it certainly doesn't mean that Hegel had no impact on his contemporaries. As Rothbard demonstrates, he had a huge influence. However, both Hegel and Rothbard are wrong in one particular aspect: they both believe a "oneness", or totality, of the subject is possible. For Hegel it is through dialectical/historical progress; for Rothbard it is through the guarantee of naturally given liberties.

It's a question of whether such a subject is possible, and in what way. I'm not convinced that Rothbardian anarchism/liberalism results in the subjectivity he claims, based on Hegel's critique of consciousness. Rothbard omits this critique from his piece, instead skipping straight to the outrageous conclusion. I don't agree with the conclusion either, which forms the basis for Hegel's conception of totalized, unified subjectivity.

It's much more likely that, in the wake of 20th-century post-structuralism (which posited ultimately that there is no such thing as a human subject), we need a radically new definition of the subject.

 

[Dak]

I think it's a wonderfully constructed, one-sided polemic that doesn't explain the reason for its condemnation of Romanticism because it knows its audience will agree with it.

It's a nonsubtle, rather superfluous reading, but a popular one. Summarizing Hegel's conception of the end of history as "the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness" is humorous, but misleading in that Rothbard never once uses the term "consciousness." His discussion of alienation and separateness appears directed by a certain physical understanding of alienation: "[...] until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob" and "In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic 'organism' of course, not the individual, will at last 'return home.'"

He uses Hegel's terminology in the second quote, but avoids explaining it. It would be useful for readers to know that this "oneness" Rothbard clearly abhors is the result not of nuclear fushion, but of a complex process of individual consciousnesses coming into contact with one another. Furthermore, Hegel nevers sees material entities such as the State or the Church as enforcing this oneness; their manifestation (in abstract ideal form) would merely be a result of this conscious interaction. The perfect state never arises for Hegel because the end of history he predicts never happens. Of course, there's a reason why it never happens: it's not possible. However, Rothbard's critique is misdirected, in my opinion.

Rothbard clearly eschews the idea of humanity as alienated, fragmented, a collection of incomplete subjects; I deduce this from his repetitive one-liners about this being a driving concern for the Romantics. Or, if he doesn't eschew the concept of alienation per se, he eschews the Romantic idea that it is brought about by division of labor, capitalism, industrialism, etc. He wants to suggest that the Romantics were incorrect from the get-go, that the conditions they see as bringing about this alienation and fragmentation, in fact, don't bring it about at all. The Romantic notion of revolution and unification is flawed because it rebels against the very ideals that Rothbard sees as ensuring human liberty.

In this sense, Rothbard is just as "romantic" as the Romantics. He maintains a concern for natural human liberties and believes that free markets would allow for the exercise of these liberties; in this way, human beings (without state regulation, importantly) could achieve a pure mode of being, unrestricted by coercive forces, in mutual exchange with one another.

The irony is, Rothbard never bothers to mention that, for Hegel, it is precisely from these conditions of individual consciousnesses freely interacting that the process of "unification", or whatever he wants to call it, inevitably arises. Competing individual consciousnesses inevitably results in power struggles, which in turn inevitably lead to inequality and disenfranchisement. Through this long historical process, Hegel claims that individuals subsequently encounter a series of crises and reformations; the teleology of his philosophy eventually culminates in the last reformation, the end of history.

It's possible that critique went farther, since it's an excerpt rather than an article. I haven't read the book so I don't know.
I was under the impression that polemics were one-sided by definition . I think I've asked before from you or someone else: "disenfranchisement" from what?

The assumption of power struggles is understood by Rothbard, and the free market is submitted as the only possible way to handle these struggles, as the state is the codification and institutionalization of the power and subsequent struggle.

I do not agree with Hegel; many philosophers today don't. But this doesn't mean the argumentative logic doesn't present interesting parameters for analysis, and it certainly doesn't mean that Hegel had no impact on his contemporaries. As Rothbard demonstrates, he had a huge influence. However, both Hegel and Rothbard are wrong in one particular aspect: they both believe a "oneness", or totality, of the subject is possible. For Hegel it is through dialectical/historical progress; for Rothbard it is through the guarantee of naturally given liberties.

It's a question of whether such a subject is possible, and in what way. I'm not convinced that Rothbardian anarchism/liberalism results in the subjectivity he claims, based on Hegel's critique of consciousness. Rothbard omits this critique from his piece, instead skipping straight to the outrageous conclusion. I don't agree with the conclusion either, which forms the basis for Hegel's conception of totalized, unified subjectivity.

It's much more likely that, in the wake of 20th-century post-structuralism (which posited ultimately that there is no such thing as a human subject), we need a radically new definition of the subject.

I don't follow on Rothbard's [belief in oneness] or your treatment of "subject".

 

[Einherjar86]

It's possible that critique went farther, since it's an excerpt rather than an article. I haven't read the book so I don't know.
I was under the impression that polemics were one-sided by definition . I think I've asked before from you or someone else: "disenfranchisement" from what?

I was being redundant for the purpose of making a point. In Medieval rhetoric, a double negative didn't actually equal a positive, but instead reinforced the negative.

Disenfranchisement from the accumulation of capital. I'll say more below:

The assumption of power struggles is understood by Rothbard, and the free market is submitted as the only possible way to handle these struggles, as the state is the codification and institutionalization of the power and subsequent struggle.

In an absolutely free society (free market, free love, etc.) wealth will accumulate in larger quantities among certain individuals; this is inevitable and can be entirely accidental. This accumulation results in certain individuals being disenfranchised from the majority of capital. When this occurs, those individuals cannot be expected to accept the philosophy that free market economics have resulted in this differentiation and that they have had an equal opportunity, even if this may have been the case. Disenfranchisement occurs naturally in such conditions, but that doesn't mean that those disenfranchised individuals will accept the consequences. In its very realization, a completely free market invites its own antithesis; its philosophical formulation becomes the justification for those whom the market rewards, but it becomes the ideology for those whom it ignores.

This is the irony in Rothbard's thesis: the free society he envisions inevitably leads to the kind of competition Hegel (and eventually Marx) theorizes. A free market is the perfect laboratory scenario to engender Hegel's vision.

Unfortunately, Hegel's vision is just as unstable as the free market envisioned by Rothbard.

I don't follow on Rothbard's [belief in oneness] or your treatment of "subject".

Rothbard assumes the human subject is capable of being fully-realized; a complete, total Cartesian cogito. He believes that a liberal/free market society would allow for this totality. I don't agree with that philosophy; it relies on Descartes's concept of the subject, which has in recent decades come into question.

 

[Dak]

In an absolutely free society (free market, free love, etc.) wealth will accumulate in larger quantities among certain individuals; this is inevitable and can be entirely accidental. This accumulation results in certain individuals being disenfranchised from the majority of capital. When this occurs, those individuals cannot be expected to accept the philosophy that free market economics have resulted in this differentiation and that they have had an equal opportunity, even if this may have been the case. Disenfranchisement occurs naturally in such conditions, but that doesn't mean that those disenfranchised individuals will accept the consequences. In its very realization, a completely free market invites its own antithesis; its philosophical formulation becomes the justification for those whom the market rewards, but it becomes the ideology for those whom it ignores.

This isn't a problem though unless capital is assumed as a right regardless of action. Then of course you also ahve to define capital. I've said before where I disagree with Rothbard is treating land the same as everything else. The idea of the free (or even somewhat free) market is that it's the only mechanism that allows free movement both up and down. Capital aggregates permanently when force is applied, and/or when land is treated the same as everything else.

As far as "the free market invites its antithesis" is like saying being born invites dying. Well it does, but that's not an argument against living.

This is the irony in Rothbard's thesis: the free society he envisions inevitably leads to the kind of competition Hegel (and eventually Marx) theorizes. A free market is the perfect laboratory scenario to engender Hegel's vision.

Unfortunately, Hegel's vision is just as unstable as the free market envisioned by Rothbard.

"Stability" is about as subjective and utopian a goal as possible, as far as institutions go.

Rothbard assumes the human subject is capable of being fully-realized; a complete, total Cartesian cogito. He believes that a liberal/free market society would allow for this totality. I don't agree with that philosophy; it relies on Descartes's concept of the subject, which has in recent decades come into question.

I don't know enough about this to comment at this time.

 

[Einherjar86]

This isn't a problem though unless capital is assumed as a right regardless of action. Then of course you also ahve to define capital. I've said before where I disagree with Rothbard is treating land the same as everything else. The idea of the free (or even somewhat free) market is that it's the only mechanism that allows free movement both up and down. Capital aggregates permanently when force is applied, and/or when land is treated the same as everything else.

Could you explain the "land" difference? If it has to do with use, then I'm not sure how I feel about this.

As far as "the free market invites its antithesis" is like saying being born invites dying. Well it does, but that's not an argument against living.

Not the point at all though; the point is that Hegel brilliantly critiques the inevitable results of Rothbard's thesis, which the latter fails to adequately address.

"Stability" is about as subjective and utopian a goal as possible, as far as institutions go.

I don't see the reason for making this point. It's not subjective if we're talking about a well-known theory. It's easy to tell if a theory is destabilized simply by comparing the abstract parameters with concrete manifestation.

 

[Dak]

Could you explain the "land" difference? If it has to do with use, then I'm not sure how I feel about this.

If someone can't [own the land they stand on] they are a defacto slave. That is not the case for merely not being rich, or even for not being able to eat. There's the old "40 acres and a mule" bit that some like to trot out re:welfare state is sort of an example. You can hand 100 people 40 acres and a mule, and some people are going to make a lot more with that 40 acres and a mule vs some others. Some might just sit on their hands and starve. This is not a fault in the system.

Not the point at all though; the point is that Hegel brilliantly critiques the inevitable results of Rothbard's thesis, which the latter fails to adequately address.

Only because you haven't read much (not that I have read much of Hegel/Marx/etc). It is understood that there will be disparities. In fact, it is assumed and counted as the system working as intended. The difference is that these disparities are not permanent unless the respective people are content in their lot.

Even now, with all the different limitations, entrenched interests, etc., people are still able to climb up and challenge the former giants, and the old guard has trouble moving into new paradigms successfully.

I don't see the reason for making this point. It's not subjective if we're talking about a well-known theory. It's easy to tell if a theory is destabilized simply by comparing the abstract parameters with concrete manifestation.

Stability is subjective (and impossible). People and the universe they inhabit are dynamic; things change and evolve. A major difference between an anarcho-theory and theories of centrally planned organization is the rigidity and attempt at stasis and homogeneity in various statist/collectivist theories. Anarcho-theory accepts human/universal dynamism and works with it instead of against it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was a bit drunk last night when I responded, which is why I may have been more forceful than usual.

I'm going to take some swings here, but I may not be able to respond again today; I have a ton of work to complete for tomorrow.

If someone can't [own the land they stand on] they are a defacto slave. That is not the case for merely not being rich, or even for not being able to eat. There's the old "40 acres and a mule" bit that some like to trot out re:welfare state is sort of an example. You can hand 100 people 40 acres and a mule, and some people are going to make a lot more with that 40 acres and a mule vs some others. Some might just sit on their hands and starve. This is not a fault in the system.

I don't understand the first sentence about de facto slavery. Is that your opinion, or Rothbard's?

Only because you haven't read much (not that I have read much of Hegel/Marx/etc). It is understood that there will be disparities. In fact, it is assumed and counted as the system working as intended. The difference is that these disparities are not permanent unless the respective people are content in their lot.

That's true, I'm not familiar with his work in a direct way. However, there is no reason to assume that the argument (i.e. "disparity proves the system is working") will appease those who have less than others. It's a reactionary thesis: excessive government involvement requires a return to some form of non-restrictive subsistence living wherein individuals trade freely amongst one another for mutual benefit.

That individuals may be "free in theory" in this scenario is true, but they are not free in practice because there must be disparity. That this is fundamental to the structure of free enterprise, and that it supposedly guarantees politically emancipated individuals, means nothing to those who are materially disenfranchised. If they cannot sustain themselves (whether this means they genuinely try and cannot, or sit on their asses all day and think others should share their surplus) they will resort to getting what they need however they can. At this point their plight becomes political, and we see the reintroduction of the system that free market ideology wanted to get rid of in the first place. In all likelihood, politics would have been "reinvented", long before revolution, by those with the majority of capital in order to ensure that their wealth is protected.

I know you've admitted this in the past, and have agreed that it's a potential problem; but you've said (I believe) that the nature of free enterprise itself should preclude any discussion of avoiding it, since the supposed liberty it entails is more important than the disparity that would result. I don't know that I agree with this simply because it's not an argument that the disparaged will accept. It ensures freedom in an abstract sense, but not in a material sense.

Even now, with all the different limitations, entrenched interests, etc., people are still able to climb up and challenge the former giants, and the old guard has trouble moving into new paradigms successfully.

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that all individuals are able to excel and ascend? That's the ideology of today's political economy, but it is not the reality. Some can climb the social ladder, certainly; but many people cannot.

Stability is subjective (and impossible). People and the universe they inhabit are dynamic; things change and evolve.

This still isn't quite what I mean. I'm speaking specifically of a theoretical formulation. I agree that stability is impossible, since I admitted above that Hegel's theory of the "end of history" will never arrive; but in this sense, we can also say that his theory as a whole is unstable, or destabilized. This isn't a subjective opinion, it can be stated as fact: Hegel's theory of history is severely unstable.

A major difference between an anarcho-theory and theories of centrally planned organization is the rigidity and attempt at stasis and homogeneity in various statist/collectivist theories. Anarcho-theory accepts human/universal dynamism and works with it instead of against it.

I do not think this is true; emphatically, in fact. Anarcho-theory is just as ideological and contradictory as Hegelian philosophy.

The biggest ideological trick of anarcho-theory is in its suggestion that, in a truly free enterprise society, all individuals would be equal in their respective freedom. In an abstract sense this is true, but it's pointless and useless; and, in fact, it's the argument that our current system appeals to now (i.e. "you can get yourself out of the gutter, work hard and you'll be successful"). Even in an anarcho-capitalist society, without the enforcement of law by state institutions, the rights of life and property are accepted as the fundamental bases for that society to function. Already we have a problem.

"There will be disparity"; this is our agreement. Telling this to the disparaged will not appease them. They still have a right to life and property, and if there own yield little or nothing, what argument is there for their doing nothing? They may be abstractly "free and equal," but this abstraction matters little unless we intend to argue that some salvation awaits them after death and if they die passively, and do not take from others, they will have everything they could desire in the afterlife (or whatever, I'm generalizing).

I'm not adopting such an argument. The values of life and property matter only to those who don't have them specifically in the capacity that they don't have them; others do. Why don't their rights guarantee them access to these things? Why do these rights, in fact, prohibit that they claim them for themselves? This is the paradox we inevitably arrive at.

It could be said: "They can take from others; in fact, this will likely happen." But this is already to admit that the logic an anarcho-capitalist society is built on is, ironically, illogical. It cannot guarantee the rights of all individuals; it can only provide them for some while depriving others.

 

[monoxide_child]

does anyone remember the gap of time where every single post in THIS thread had a link in it?

 

[Dak]

I don't understand the first sentence about de facto slavery. Is that your opinion, or Rothbard's?

Mine. Rothbard was vehemently against "Tucker-ites", IE people who promoted land-use occupancy ideas (Benjamin Tucker). If land is monopolized, non-land owners are de facto slaves, as they are at the mercy of the land owners. This is the situation now via states.

That's true, I'm not familiar with his work in a direct way. However, there is no reason to assume that the argument (i.e. "disparity proves the system is working") will appease those who have less than others. It's a reactionary thesis: excessive government involvement requires a return to some form of non-restrictive subsistence living wherein individuals trade freely amongst one another for mutual benefit.

Since [anarchy] is the natural state, why isn't the state reactionary? But it's not subsistence. Subsistence living is the end result of zero property rights, as there is zero ability and thusly reason to produce more than can be immediately consumed.

That individuals may be "free in theory" in this scenario is true, but they are not free in practice because there must be disparity. That this is fundamental to the structure of free enterprise, and that it supposedly guarantees politically emancipated individuals, means nothing to those who are materially disenfranchised. If they cannot sustain themselves (whether this means they genuinely try and cannot, or sit on their asses all day and think others should share their surplus) they will resort to getting what they need however they can. At this point their plight becomes political, and we see the reintroduction of the system that free market ideology wanted to get rid of in the first place. In all likelihood, politics would have been "reinvented", long before revolution, by those with the majority of capital in order to ensure that their wealth is protected.

I know you've admitted this in the past, and have agreed that it's a potential problem; but you've said (I believe) that the nature of free enterprise itself should preclude any discussion of avoiding it, since the supposed liberty it entails is more important than the disparity that would result. I don't know that I agree with this simply because it's not an argument that the disparaged will accept. It ensures freedom in an abstract sense, but not in a material sense.

How does disparity automatically equal "unfree"? How is disparity measured? Some people are content to live very simply, others very lavishly. Is the Thoreau less free because he has less than Vanderbilt?

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that all individuals are able to excel and ascend? That's the ideology of today's political economy, but it is not the reality. Some can climb the social ladder, certainly; but many people cannot.

I didn't say all. I'm pointing out that even with all the restrictions, the market (as merely the sum of human transactions) will "find a way".

This still isn't quite what I mean. I'm speaking specifically of a theoretical formulation. I agree that stability is impossible, since I admitted above that Hegel's theory of the "end of history" will never arrive; but in this sense, we can also say that his theory as a whole is unstable, or destabilized. This isn't a subjective opinion, it can be stated as fact: Hegel's theory of history is severely unstable.

Humans are generally unstable, and so will be any attempt at herding them.

I do not think this is true; emphatically, in fact. Anarcho-theory is just as ideological and contradictory as Hegelian philosophy.

The biggest ideological trick of anarcho-theory is in its suggestion that, in a truly free enterprise society, all individuals would be equal in their respective freedom. In an abstract sense this is true, but it's pointless and useless; and, in fact, it's the argument that our current system appeals to now (i.e. "you can get yourself out of the gutter, work hard and you'll be successful"). Even in an anarcho-capitalist society, without the enforcement of law by state institutions, the rights of life and property are accepted as the fundamental bases for that society to function. Already we have a problem.

"There will be disparity"; this is our agreement. Telling this to the disparaged will not appease them. They still have a right to life and property, and if there own yield little or nothing, what argument is there for their doing nothing? They may be abstractly "free and equal," but this abstraction matters little unless we intend to argue that some salvation awaits them after death and if they die passively, and do not take from others, they will have everything they could desire in the afterlife (or whatever, I'm generalizing).

They shouldn't do nothing, they should try again. Yes that is the rhetoric of the times, unfortunately it is mostly leftover rhetoric from more free times.

Different people, different places, different times yield different opportunities. Everything above and beyond food in the mouth is [gravy]. There are things I'm simply not good at, and probably never would be good at. If I continued to try and beat my head against the wall at those things, whose fault is that? Conversely, why is it a problem that someone else excels in supplying the needs of those around him in an area where I cannot?

Economic problems that arise from human envy cannot be codified and institutionalized any more so than murder/rape/etc. The resulting problems don't go away just because something is legalized.

I'm not adopting such an argument. The values of life and property matter only to those who don't have them specifically in the capacity that they don't have them; others do. Why don't their rights guarantee them access to these things? Why do these rights, in fact, prohibit that they claim them for themselves? This is the paradox we inevitably arrive at.

It could be said: "They can take from others; in fact, this will likely happen." But this is already to admit that the logic an anarcho-capitalist society is built on is, ironically, illogical. It cannot guarantee the rights of all individuals; it can only provide them for some while depriving others.

Depriving of what? Opportunity? The gains of others?

 

[Einherjar86]

Mine. Rothbard was vehemently against "Tucker-ites", IE people who promoted land-use occupancy ideas (Benjamin Tucker). If land is monopolized, non-land owners are de facto slaves, as they are at the mercy of the land owners. This is the situation now via states.

The idea of land ownership could also be said to entail a form of slavery though.

Since [anarchy] is the natural state, why isn't the state reactionary? But it's not subsistence. Subsistence living is the end result of zero property rights, as there is zero ability and thusly reason to produce more than can be immediately consumed.

Subsistence was the wrong word; simply trade/barter. Granted, your vision is more complex than this, but essentially it's a system that would allow for free trade interaction between consenting parties.

A reactionary theory is one that appeals to the value of previous modes of existence. A theory of statehood can't be reactionary, since it begs for a mode of being after that of natural animalistic existence. "Reactionary" proposes a return to some previous form of existence; "revolutionary" suggests a historical alteration of form. All anarcho-capitalism proclaims is a return to a previous form of existence, but with more moralizing. This is where the contradiction lies: you're proposing an elevation of basic human rights, while at the same time espousing a system that inevitably denies certain individuals those rights.

How does disparity automatically equal "unfree"? How is disparity measured? Some people are content to live very simply, others very lavishly. Is the Thoreau less free because he has less than Vanderbilt?

Do you think that society would actually equal itself out so perfectly, so that those who have less are content with less? Furthermore, there is a limit to what people can live without, and the accumulation of wealth makes it more difficult for those with less to survive. This is an extreme pole, but it's inevitably what individuals move toward.

I didn't say all. I'm pointing out that even with all the restrictions, the market (as merely the sum of human transactions) will "find a way".

If you're suggesting that the market is analogous to an evolutionary model of life, I would suggest that that is entirely contradictory to the rights that it supposedly ensures. The market will never find a way to compensate for the needs/rights of all individuals. That is impossible.

Humans are generally unstable, and so will be any attempt at herding them.

Still not talking about people.

They shouldn't do nothing, they should try again. Yes that is the rhetoric of the times, unfortunately it is mostly leftover rhetoric from more free times.

Different people, different places, different times yield different opportunities. Everything above and beyond food in the mouth is [gravy]. There are things I'm simply not good at, and probably never would be good at. If I continued to try and beat my head against the wall at those things, whose fault is that? Conversely, why is it a problem that someone else excels in supplying the needs of those around him in an area where I cannot?

Economic problems that arise from human envy cannot be codified and institutionalized any more so than murder/rape/etc. The resulting problems don't go away just because something is legalized.

It has nothing to do with envy, even if some individuals are envious of others. Envy is a sin; it should have no place in the discussion. I'm talking about people who inevitably discover themselves without the means to sustain their own existence. This will happen, and the market can do nothing about this. They, in turn, will subvert the very principles the whole system is built upon when they take what they need from others. I think maybe you don't see a problem with this.

Depriving of what? Opportunity? The gains of others?

Deprivation of the means of sustenance and survival.

 

[Dak]

The idea of land ownership could also be said to entail a form of slavery though.

Guess we would need to define slavery and ownership then .

Subsistence was the wrong word; simply trade/barter. Granted, your vision is more complex than this, but essentially it's a system that would allow for free trade interaction between consenting parties.

Yes.

A reactionary theory is one that appeals to the value of previous modes of existence. A theory of statehood can't be reactionary, since it begs for a mode of being after that of natural animalistic existence. "Reactionary" proposes a return to some previous form of existence; "revolutionary" suggests a historical alteration of form. All anarcho-capitalism proclaims is a return to a previous form of existence, but with more moralizing. This is where the contradiction lies: you're proposing an elevation of basic human rights, while at the same time espousing a system that inevitably denies certain individuals those rights.

What "rights, and who is denied them? By reactionary I assumed [in response to]. Government is supposedly in response to perceived dangs in the lack thereof.

Do you think that society would actually equal itself out so perfectly, so that those who have less are content with less? Furthermore, there is a limit to what people can live without, and the accumulation of wealth makes it more difficult for those with less to survive. This is an extreme pole, but it's inevitably what individuals move toward.

I don't follow this at all. Very vague. Some people are content with less, some are not. Different value systems. For those who have less and wish for more, work and exchange offer paths to improve their position to their liking.

If you're suggesting that the market is analogous to an evolutionary model of life, I would suggest that that is entirely contradictory to the rights that it supposedly ensures. The market will never find a way to compensate for the needs/rights of all individuals. That is impossible.

Correct, nothing can do that. But we don't trample on rights to enforce them. That's a fail from the start.

Still not talking about people.

I know, but you cannot divorce the system from the people who create them/run them/inhabit them.

It has nothing to do with envy, even if some individuals are envious of others. Envy is a sin; it should have no place in the discussion. I'm talking about people who inevitably discover themselves without the means to sustain their own existence. This will happen, and the market can do nothing about this. They, in turn, will subvert the very principles the whole system is built upon when they take what they need from others. I think maybe you don't see a problem with this.

"The market" is merely the sum of transactions. If someone gets to a point where they have absolutely nothing left to them (including work opportunity), and no friends/family/connections/charity left to bridge the gap, the probability of theft or worse is high. I don't see this as a problem. It is what it is. The liklihood of a person becoming absolutely destitute is infantismal, and in that case the liklihood that their own bad behavior has left them in such a predicament is high. Theft would be a high risk high reward option in such a case. Insurance and security exist to handle such problems, as car insurance and air bags helps cushion against bad drivers.

Deprivation of the means of sustenance and survival.

How would this occur by market machinations? A group arising to achieve things by political/violent means and causing this instead of pursuing exchange etc isn't an argument against free exchange.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't follow this at all. Very vague. Some people are content with less, some are not. Different value systems. For those who have less and wish for more, work and exchange offer paths to improve their position to their liking.

I disagree that the free market would provide such opportunities for all; it will only provide for those who already possess the means to achieve such ends.

Correct, nothing can do that. But we don't trample on rights to enforce them. That's a fail from the start.

A free market, by its very definition, provides a space for individuals to trample on the rights of other individuals. That's the very logic of its structure.

I know, but you cannot divorce the system from the people who create them/run them/inhabit them.

Now this I agree with; but if we're going to maintain this, then you can't blame acts of theft or other coercive actions by individuals within an anarchist system on those individuals and not on the system itself. It is the system that causes the disparity which forces people to act in such a way.

"The market" is merely the sum of transactions. If someone gets to a point where they have absolutely nothing left to them (including work opportunity), and no friends/family/connections/charity left to bridge the gap, the probability of theft or worse is high. I don't see this as a problem. It is what it is. The liklihood of a person becoming absolutely destitute is infantismal, and in that case the liklihood that their own bad behavior has left them in such a predicament is high. Theft would be a high risk high reward option in such a case. Insurance and security exist to handle such problems, as car insurance and air bags helps cushion against bad drivers.

Why is the likelihood so low? I don't think you can convincingly make this claim.

How would this occur by market machinations? A group arising to achieve things by political/violent means and causing this instead of pursuing exchange etc isn't an argument against free exchange.

It is for those individuals, since free exchange obviously isn't providing for their needs. You talk as though anarcho-theory occupies a privileged space that provides the most opportunities for all individuals, but I think this is very unlikely.

 

[Dak]

I disagree that the free market would provide such opportunities for all; it will only provide for those who already possess the means to achieve such ends.

A free market, by its very definition, provides a space for individuals to trample on the rights of other individuals. That's the very logic of its structure.

What people are you referring to who "already possess the means to achieve such ends?"

Are you referring to if government just evaporated tomorrow leaving the current haves and have nots in place with respective slices of total wealth?

I don't follow you on the second point. What do you mean by "provides space for the trampling of rights"? I can't imagine what rights you are referring to either really. Seems to me akin to saying that marriage tramples on the rights of all other potential respective suitors, regardless of the wishes of the respective spouses.

Now this I agree with; but if we're going to maintain this, then you can't blame acts of theft or other coercive actions by individuals within an anarchist system on those individuals and not on the system itself. It is the system that causes the disparity which forces people to act in such a way.

Yet all systems that recognize property have potential for theft, and one does not need to be destitute to steal (look at the TBTF). We also may as well blame any and all systems for murder, since there will be murderers regardless of what system is established.

Why is the likelihood so low? I don't think you can convincingly make this claim.

Absolutely nothing left to an individual, and no possible person willing to help? I can't imagine the events required to cause this situation without bringing in [government], or unless the person cut themselves off from society and walked into the middle of a barren wasteland.

It is for those individuals, since free exchange obviously isn't providing for their needs. You talk as though anarcho-theory occupies a privileged space that provides the most opportunities for all individuals, but I think this is very unlikely.

I would argue that the point of not monopolizing land is specifically to prevent the market from being the source of needs meeting, versus wants meeting. IE, as of right now I am on family land. In the event that economic things turn south, I can raise plants/animals to provide absolute needs. For an average family of four, it does not take much land to provide subsistence level living (needs). I do not absolutely require the market or transactions. It takes division of labor, property, and free exchange or everyone to progress beyond this for everyone, or I can take slaves and only elevate my own position relative to the rest.

But, if I had no land available to me/no family friends with such I would be under constant threat of "how will we eat" if the next check doesn't come. This is the position of most people in the system as it exists now, as even many with some "land" cannot grow anything on it. It is interesting to note that major hedge funds/investors/etc are moving away from stocks into arable land as the economic situation deteriorates.