Political and economic history

[Dak]

I don't think coercion is necessarily evil if it's for a greater good. Well, I guess it depends on one's definition of evil.

Ahhhhhhh

 

[Vimana]

I think of it as intentional, unnecessary (for the doer's survival), negative action towards another sentient entity. Still, it's hardly an all-encompassing definition.

 

[skeptik]

"Evil" is a construct too bro. It's not inherent to anything.

 

[Dak]

I don't agree with Molyneux on where he "tries to go" sometimes, but he is probably one of the most consistently logical and rational "amatuer" philospher at the current time in history. This video was an excellent speech.

"Evil" is a construct too bro. It's not inherent to anything.

Pretty nihilistic bro.

 

[Dak]

Furthermore on nihilism, Nietzsche's "active nihilism" is possibly the best example of illogical, irrational philisophical submissions, or at best, complete intellectual dishonesty/fraud.

 

[Einherjar86]

I feel that this is a servicable, but incomplete definition. The wiki entry on "coercive monopoly" gives him a mention with a more complete definition pulling from an overall picture of his work.

The difference in recognition of private property vs "socialized" property is immense. There is no incentive for long term progress outside of the basic necessities, as effort and reward are completely decoupled. At some point, in a utopic progression where violence never entered the picture to get a segment of the population to "pull their fair share of the load", social syndicalism would find itself most likely hovering at a subsistence mean. To be fair, that is still heavily desirable to any current statist system.

It's not immense on a small community level where individuals frequently share their property with others. That's why I said "in practice" they're very similar, at least on smaller, more socially intimate scales.

Something important Choamsky pointed out in that interview was that all statist regimes quickly worked together to a more or less degree to attack and stamp out any attempt at "self governance" before it could find it's legs. Of course, almost all of those regimes which did so are now gone. So in response to "anarcho-__blank__" can't work, I can readily point to all statist regimes as not having "worked" either.

But Chomsky's ideal society isn't a statist regime. You follow Rothbard's definition of socialism as inherently statist, but I don't necessarily believe that. Chomsky's lengthy explanations of his ideal society don't insinuate any kind of statist hierarchy or organization.

"Evil" is a construct too bro. It's not inherent to anything.

Furthermore on nihilism, Nietzsche's "active nihilism" is possibly the best example of illogical, irrational philisophical submissions, or at best, complete intellectual dishonesty/fraud.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. Nietzsche's nihilism refers to the abolition of absolutes (or, rather, that they never existed in the first place), which is also what Matt's quote is insinuating. I don't see how that's irrational or dishonest.

 

[Dak]

It's not immense on a small community level where individuals frequently share their property with others. That's why I said "in practice" they're very similar, at least on smaller, more socially intimate scales.

There is an immense difference between voluntary sharing of private property, and "mutual ownership of property", even on a small scale. The needs of the individual (and therefore the person itself) are sacrificed to the "collective", which happens to be made up of other individuals. If you cannot own the ground under your feet, and the work of your hands, you are a slave to those who do.

But Chomsky's ideal society isn't a statist regime. You follow Rothbard's definition of socialism as inherently statist, but I don't necessarily believe that. Chomsky's lengthy explanations of his ideal society don't insinuate any kind of statist hierarchy or organization.

Socialism is inherently statist. The ground under your feet and the work of your hands is owned by (someone) everyone else. As soon as someone objects to being owned, you will quickly see the violence inherent in such a system. Instead of it not being statist, you have merely swelled the beaurocracy to include almost everyone.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. Nietzsche's nihilism refers to the abolition of absolutes (or, rather, that they never existed in the first place), which is also what Matt's quote is insinuating. I don't see how that's irrational or dishonest.

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but the destruction of all absolutes is an absolute, and therefore a mockery of basic logic. To discuss the absence of meaning is hypocrisy. Every book written attempting to support nihilism disproves it by existence. Nietzsche takes this hypocrisy further, through discussion of "creating meanings" to solve the "problem" of nihilism. You cannot create what cannot exist.

I will take this further, that any self avowed nihilist who is for or against anything is a hypocrite. Ironic since most "nihilists" are staunchly anti-religion. If there is no value, absolute, or meaning, then there is no basis for being anti-religion. It's just another meaningless thing to be ignored, or embraced. You know, "whatever" you feel like at the moment. It doesn't matter anyway. Go to church on a whim and then burn it later, it all has the same objective value, which is none.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is an immense difference between voluntary sharing of private property, and "mutual ownership of property", even on a small scale. The needs of the individual (and therefore the person itself) are sacrificed to the "collective", which happens to be made up of other individuals. If you cannot own the ground under your feet, and the work of your hands, you are a slave to those who do.

Many anarcho-syndicalists, or libertarian socialists, agree that owning the products of your labor is one of the most important things for an individual. I don't see how those in such a system could possibly be slaves to anyone else if everyone's work is owned collectively. It's not as though you, the "individual," loses everything. Everything is shared. Taken purely in this idealistic, utopian definition, socialism doesn't create slaves.

Socialism is inherently statist. The ground under your feet and the work of your hands is owned by (someone) everyone else. As soon as someone objects to being owned, you will quickly see the violence inherent in such a system. Instead of it not being statist, you have merely swelled the beaurocracy to include almost everyone.

How is this "everyone else" the equivalent of a "State"? The collective =/= the State.

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but the destruction of all absolutes is an absolute, and therefore a mockery of basic logic. To discuss the absence of meaning is hypocrisy. Every book written attempting to support nihilism disproves it by existence. Nietzsche takes this hypocrisy further, through discussion of "creating meanings" to solve the "problem" of nihilism. You cannot create what cannot exist.

It's not the absence of meaning; it's the ambiguity and "slippage" of meaning. Of course meaning exists; you're understanding the words I'm writing. What doesn't exist is a purely objective state of meaning. Words can mean different things to different people. Any absolutes, or structure that posits them, is a historically and culturally derived apparatus that does not possess secret knowlege of some occult meaning.

I will take this further, that any self avowed nihilist who is for or against anything is a hypocrite. Ironic since most "nihilists" are staunchly anti-religion. If there is no value, absolute, or meaning, then there is no basis for being anti-religion. It's just another meaningless thing to be ignored, or embraced. You know, "whatever" you feel like at the moment. It doesn't matter anyway. Go to church on a whim and then burn it later, it all has the same objective value, which is none.

This is a vulgar nihilism, and a somewhat vulgar interpretation. Nietzsche saw the "death of God" as a means toward revolutionary action, which could potentially establish a world of action-oriented meaning. Nietzsche saw the entire history of culture, religion, politics, etc. as constructing society on the basis of false absolutes that were derived from power struggles. The outcome of these power struggles, as little more than accidents of history, caused conscious individuals to begin assigning moral meaning to things ("good," "bad," "evil"); but these meanings are arbitrary. Nietzsche didn't see humanity as hopeless and on a road to nowhere. He posited an ideal form of life ("ubermensch") and the transcending of false values. The "nihilist" tag on Nietzsche leads to a great deal of misreading.

 

[Dak]

Many anarcho-syndicalists, or libertarian socialists, agree that owning the products of your labor is one of the most important things for an individual. I don't see how those in such a system could possibly be slaves to anyone else if everyone's work is owned collectively. It's not as though you, the "individual," loses everything. Everything is shared. Taken purely in this idealistic, utopian definition, socialism doesn't create slaves.

Collective ownership is an oxymoron in itself. The definition of ownership is

exclusive rights and control over property

A collective cannot have exclusive rights to something. Socialism will break down as soon as you get mad that I sit around and read books all day while you make the food that I eat.

How is this "everyone else" the equivalent of a "State"? The collective =/= the State.

A violent monopoly on the initiation of force. Funded by theft of part or all individual production.

It's not the absence of meaning; it's the ambiguity and "slippage" of meaning. Of course meaning exists; you're understanding the words I'm writing. What doesn't exist is a purely objective state of meaning. Words can mean different things to different people. Any absolutes, or structure that posits them, is a historically and culturally derived apparatus that does not possess secret knowlege of some occult meaning.

You know better than to resort to semantics. Words are arbitrary constructs to enable human discussion of non-arbitrary people/places/thing/events.

This is a vulgar nihilism, and a somewhat vulgar interpretation. Nietzsche saw the "death of God" as a means toward revolutionary action, which could potentially establish a world of action-oriented meaning. Nietzsche saw the entire history of culture, religion, politics, etc. as constructing society on the basis of false absolutes that were derived from power struggles. The outcome of these power struggles, as little more than accidents of history, caused conscious individuals to begin assigning moral meaning to things ("good," "bad," "evil"); but these meanings are arbitrary. Nietzsche didn't see humanity as hopeless and on a road to nowhere. He posited an ideal form of life ("ubermensch") and the transcending of false values. The "nihilist" tag on Nietzsche leads to a great deal of misreading.

Just because subjective meanings can be given to words, doesn't mean there isn't a definition that can be agreed upon for the purposes of objective discussion.

All "false" values being replaced with some sort of "nihilistic messiah"

 

[Cythraul]

That's why you left out Bastiat

Edit: Zeph only recommends things that instruct in, and justify "evil overlordism". Adam Smith excluded.

Give it a rest already. Somebody didn't recommend enough things you agree with, boo fucking hoo. And if you think Adam Smith is the only one in that list who doesn't instruct in and justify "evil overlordism", you don't fucking know what you're talking about.

 

[Einherjar86]

Collective ownership is an oxymoron in itself.

A collective cannot have exclusive rights to something. Socialism will break down as soon as you get mad that I sit around and read books all day while you make the food that I eat.

I don't believe this problem would be as widespread as those who oppose it claim. There's a popular idea that without incentive people will just stop working. I don't see any reason to believe that.

A violent monopoly on the initiation of force. Funded by theft of part or all individual production.

This idea that "collectivism is theft" is logical only if you're taking a liberal capitalist perspective. And what monopoly? Without government regulation, as you've suggested elsewhere, how would such a monopoly arise? There's no central authority governing the decision-making process.

You know better than to resort to semantics. Words are arbitrary constructs to enable human discussion of non-arbitrary people/places/thing/events.

Just because subjective meanings can be given to words, doesn't mean there isn't a definition that can be agreed upon for the purposes of objective discussion.

This is not what Nietzsche is driving at. I said that meaning exists; of course it does, because you interpret my words to have meaning. And they do, we're successfully communicating. I say "lion" and you know what I "mean."

Nietzsche is contending absolutes like the great chain of being, or Neoplatonic levels that designate specific things and ideals at specific abstract locations, or political hierarchies. "The lion is the king of the jungle," "the absolute ruler has absolute authority," "God is good, God is great," etc. Don't reduce this to words, because that's not what Nietzsche's primary concern is. Language, as a historical phenomenon, transmits meaning; even Saussure and Lacan would agree with that. Nietzsche's argument was against archaic hierarchies that attribute inherent value to things that possess no instrinsic value.

There must be a way to communicate and transmit meaning, because this is the only way to challenge absolute values.

All "false" values being replaced with some sort of "nihilistic messiah"

Nietzsche's is a philosophy that predicts structuralism and deconstruction. He constructs his ideas based on archaic binary oppositions which he then proceeds to undermine. He is rebelling against centuries of tradition and obedience. Much of his writing is creative and imaginative, almost poetic; misreadings are common with such styles, but you have see beyond the passionate nature of his words. He is predicting a revolution in the understanding of meaning and subjectivity. And, personally, I think history has proved him right.

 

[Dak]

Give it a rest already. Somebody didn't recommend enough things you agree with, boo fucking hoo. And if you think Adam Smith is the only one in that list who doesn't instruct in and justify "evil overlordism", you don't fucking know what you're talking about.

We have different definitions of "overlordism" then. (TBC, I use that phrase toungue in cheek)

I don't believe this problem would be as widespread as those who oppose it claim. There's a popular idea that without incentive people will just stop working. I don't see any reason to believe that.

That's why so many people on welfare work long hours and fight to get off it, amirite? To make that statement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is disappointing, to say the least.

This idea that "collectivism is theft" is logical only if you're taking a liberal capitalist perspective. And what monopoly? Without government regulation, as you've suggested elsewhere, how would such a monopoly arise? There's no central authority governing the decision-making process.

No, it's logical based on the concept of self ownership. Also, to claim there is no "central authority" goes against your charges against anarcho-capitalism stating that "hierarchies always form".

On this note: America's Socialist history

This is not what Nietzsche is driving at. I said that meaning exists; of course it does, because you interpret my words to have meaning. And they do, we're successfully communicating. I say "lion" and you know what I "mean."

Nietzsche is contending absolutes like the great chain of being, or Neoplatonic levels that designate specific things and ideals at specific abstract locations, or political hierarchies. "The lion is the king of the jungle," "the absolute ruler has absolute authority," "God is good, God is great," etc. Don't reduce this to words, because that's not what Nietzsche's primary concern is. Language, as a historical phenomenon, transmits meaning; even Saussure and Lacan would agree with that. Nietzsche's argument was against archaic hierarchies that attribute inherent value to things that possess no instrinsic value.

There must be a way to communicate and transmit meaning, because this is the only way to challenge absolute values.

Well if we are challenging the "goodness" of say, America entering/winning WWI, I agree. But I have read nothing that leads me to believe this was the sole, or even major focus of Nietzsche or his numerous commentators.

Nietzsche's is a philosophy that predicts structuralism and deconstruction. He constructs his ideas based on archaic binary oppositions which he then proceeds to undermine. He is rebelling against centuries of tradition and obedience. Much of his writing is creative and imaginative, almost poetic; misreadings are common with such styles, but you have see beyond the passionate nature of his words. He is predicting a revolution in the understanding of meaning and subjectivity. And, personally, I think history has proved him right.

You need no philosophy to show the cyclical nature of mankind and it's constructs/civilizations/etc. That is as elementary as predicting the rising and setting of the sun. There have been countless "revolutions" of countless types, and there will be countless more, absent some sort earth ending cataclysm, return of a deity, aliens, etc etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's why so many people on welfare work long hours and fight to get off it, amirite? To make that statement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is disappointing, to say the least.

So many people on welfare don't work because they have children to take care of at home. In a system where collectivist policies were instituted, there would be professionals who could take care of those children during the day while their parents went out to work. Furthermore, there are a large majority of people on welfare who don't want to be there. In case you haven't noticed, it's not a fantastic existence. Your perspective is the popular Fox News view that tries to paint all welfare families as lazy and unmotivated.

No, it's logical based on the concept of self ownership. Also, to claim there is no "central authority" goes against your charges against anarcho-capitalism stating that "hierarchies always form".

I was waiting for that. I think that hierarchies do form; I also think they would be more easily thwarted in an egalitarian society as opposed to one where the only social unit is the individual.

Well if we are challenging the "goodness" of say, America entering/winning WWI, I agree. But I have read nothing that leads me to believe this was the sole, or even major focus of Nietzsche or his numerous commentators.

You need no philosphy to show the cyclical nature of mankind and it's constructs/civilizations/etc. That is as elementary as predicting the rising and setting of the sun. There have been countless "revolutions" of countless types, and there will be countless more, absent some sort earth ending cataclysm, return of a deity, aliens, etc etc.

It was philosophy that exposed the constructs of society as just that. You assume the ease of spotting society's flaws and arbitrary constructs ("spotting the lies and spreading the truth"), but the only reason this comes as "elementary" to you is because an entire history of skeptical thinkers came before you.

Finally, Nietzsche is concerned first and foremost with cultural absolutes and how they come about (religion, morality, political hierarchies, etc.). I don't know what Nietzsche you've read, but perhaps you should read some of Keith Ansell-Pearson's editions of his work. He is fundamentally interested in how cultures come to perceive themselves as morally superior, as "good" while other cultures are "evil," and he is interested in the construction of the values that inform these absolutes. That is what Nietzsche writes about.

 

[Cythraul]

No, it's logical based on the concept of self ownership.

You know what's also logical based on the concept of self-ownership? That there are no full-blooded private property rights.

 

[Dak]

So many people on welfare don't work because they have children to take care of at home. In a system where collectivist policies were instituted, there would be professionals who could take care of those children during the day while their parents went out to work. Furthermore, there are a large majority of people on welfare who don't want to be there. In case you haven't noticed, it's not a fantastic existence. Your perspective is the popular Fox News view that tries to paint all welfare families as lazy and unmotivated.

Nice try, but no. I grew up in a neighborhood full of welfare moms. While it isn't a great existence, it's "easy". I also didn't say "none try and escape", but considering there are more on government assistance of some type than ever before, it's obvious most don't get off.

I was waiting for that. I think that hierarchies do form; I also think they would be more easily thwarted in an egalitarian society as opposed to one where the only social unit is the individual.

Who said that self ownership renders the individual alone? That's akin to claiming that not starting wars is "isolationist".
Any hierarchy formed in a idealogical system that is based on the ownership of people becomes the de-facto slave owner. So no, I completely disagree.

It was philosophy that exposed the constructs of society as just that. You assume the ease of spotting society's flaws and arbitrary constructs ("spotting the lies and spreading the truth"), but the only reason this comes as "elementary" to you is because an entire history of skeptical thinkers came before you.

I would say it has less to do with the thinkers and more to do with the slowly increasing amounts of historical data/raw information. I doubt there were any more or less logical thinkers at any given point in time in history, but their access to information has gone from almost none to almost unlimited at this point. The old "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Finally, Nietzsche is concerned first and foremost with cultural absolutes and how they come about (religion, morality, political hierarchies, etc.). I don't know what Nietzsche you've read, but perhaps you should read some of Keith Ansell-Pearson's editions of his work. He is fundamentally interested in how cultures come to perceive themselves as morally superior, as "good" while other cultures are "evil," and he is interested in the construction of the values that inform these absolutes. That is what Nietzsche writes about.

Cultures assume themselves to be morally superior because what other rational choice do they have, psychologically speaking? It is an illogical assumption, but a rational one in the absence of logic/information sharing.

You know what's also logical based on the concept of self-ownership? That there are no full-blooded private property rights.

Referring specifically to land, or the product of labor, or both?

 

[Cythraul]

Referring specifically to land, or the product of labor, or both?

Anything that may be regarded as external property.

 

[Dak]

Anything that may be regarded as external property.

I'm listening. I already agree that you cannot "own" land you are not currently occupying/using, especially since "title" assumes a state-like entity to "work".

 

[Cythraul]

You can't even get full-blooded ownership over land that you're currently occupying based on the concept of self-ownership. You also can't get full-blooded ownership over the products of your labor out of this concept.

 

[Dak]

You can't even get full-blooded ownership over land that you're currently occupying based on the concept of self-ownership. You also can't get full-blooded ownership over the products of your labor out of this concept.

I am assuming by "fullblooded" you mean 1.a/b or 3., roughly:

full-blood·ed (flbldd)
adj.
1.
a. Of unmixed ancestry; purebred.
b. Related by way of having the same parents.
2.
a. Not pale or anemic; florid or ruddy.
b. Vigorous and vital.
3. Complete in all respects.

You are going to have to take this a little further, because right now you are making a somewhat vague assertion in a practical sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nice try, but no. I grew up in a neighborhood full of welfare moms. While it isn't a great existence, it's "easy". I also didn't say "none try and escape", but considering there are more on government assistance of some type than ever before, it's obvious most don't get off.

Because it's impossible for them to get off in the system we currently have. They can't hope to raise children and make a decent living at once.

Who said that self ownership renders the individual alone? That's akin to claiming that not starting wars is "isolationist".
Any hierarchy formed in a idealogical system that is based on the ownership of people becomes the de-facto slave owner. So no, I completely disagree.

It doesn't advocate the ownership of people, it advocates the collective ownership of property and means of production.

I would say it has less to do with the thinkers and more to do with the slowly increasing amounts of historical data/raw information. I doubt there were any more or less logical thinkers at any given point in time in history, but their access to information has gone from almost none to almost unlimited at this point. The old "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Access to information always has something to do with it; but you don't think those same "thinkers" were actively engaged in the production of new information? There were obviously those who were more attentive and observant and who voiced opinions on the phenomena they witnessed.

Cultures assume themselves to be morally superior because what other rational choice do they have, psychologically speaking? It is an illogical assumption, but a rational one in the absence of logic/information sharing.

That's possibly the biggest copout I've ever seen you write.