Philosophy of Liberty

[Capitalist Pig]

This was made by a Randian Objectivist, but I think it still has a good message and is wholly compatible with autarchist values.

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmed...ty-english.swf

[Gilly]

Admirable but simplistic

[Absurd]

Hmm.

[Aquagraph]

It's pretty cool. If one dare say otherwise, the local libertarian populace would attack me. Looking especially at you, Ashton. Hi

Some thoughts: What is property? You just take it from the ground and it's yours? Not so simple. Maybe you're from a wealthy family and thus you inherit lots of stuff that your ancestors took by force, leaving many empty-handed?
Are people with rich parents entitled to the wealth more than the others as they get more job opportunities and wealth because of better education?

What about incoming neo-colonialism? Who owns the the planets? The first to get there?

What about when all the jobs are done obsolete by technology? What can you do better than a self-repairing automaton who requires minimal susteinance and has a better whose AI surpasses your relatively menial intelligence? Would it be the world where the owning class are only interested in labour through sentimental things, such as workers as therapists and prostitutes?

Won't we need any kind of social security net at all?

What about when someone comes and tries to take your wealth by force? Won't they just form a new state, possibly a lot more fascist? It's real nice to talk about freedom, but must we all hire peacekeepers and guards? Won't the wealthier ones attack with their better army?

Does wealth help accumulating more wealth? If so, won't it raise economic inequality as modern economical dynasties will form?

No market regulation: Will the uneducated be competing with sweat shop force of China even more?

Advertising ain't a fraud? When have you seen informational advertising with no mental imagery involved? Drawing the line is arbitrary. "The worlds most recommended tooth paste."

Will be continued. I think.

[Pa3s]

I agree with all things which were written in this animation. But it's the issue with private property which I see rather critical. I can't fully agree with Anarcho-Communists who deny any kind of property (except for the things for your personal need) and individual wages (a doctor should get more money than a construction worker imho). I believe it's the right of people to own things and I see money as a useful tool to exchange values. But in my opinion, we need to get rid of the capitalist use of money. Everyone deserves the fruit of their own labour, this is no question for me. If they decide to share it with others, so be it. And that is actually a good thing, but they need to have the choice. However, we have to stop people earning money without working themselves, but with the work of many others. That's why nobody should own the means of production like factories, because it is the foundation of a authoritarian relationship between worker and employer and therefore the basis of slavery. Of course, you probably say all those worker-employer relationships are only started if both parties agree in this kind of society, but the reality looks different in my opinion. Money (as it can be used today) equals power and power will be abused by someone, always.

I can't say if I fully agree, yet, but the few impression I got of Bakunin's Collectivist Anarchism (or Anarcho-Collectivism) appeared to be a very good solution. Unlike the Communist approach, property and money will stay. However, factories and anything which company-owned today will be turned into collectives, they will be managed by the workers and employees. Nobody is ever the boss of anyone. Along with that, nobody should be able to acquire money through their property alone (for example, with renting a apartment to others). The personal life will be as in any other anarchist model: people live mostly the way they want and be part of groups they choose themselves. The state's social services will be replaced by the voluntary support by friends and group members. I still have some questions, but I'm getting a book about it which might clear up things a bit.

[Absurd]

It's pretty cool. If one dare say otherwise, the local libertarian populace would attack me. Looking especially at you, Ashton. Hi

You made it sound like he lives "here" and suffers from multiple personality disorder.

Some thoughts: What is property?

There are all kinds of property but I want to see the answer myself.

[Gilly]

You made it sound like he lives "here" and suffers from multiple personality disorder.

No, he makes it sound how it is: Ashton openly belittles most people who disagrees with his ideas and publicly mocks opposing viewpoints at every opportunity.

[Absurd]

No, he makes it sound how it is: Ashton openly belittles most people who disagrees with his ideas and publicly mocks opposing viewpoints at every opportunity.

Ohh, that Ashton. I'm really sorry to hear that. Good thing I am no idea generator and have nothing to fear.

[Creepy-male]

I'll have to take a closer look, I got part way through the slideshow.

One point I can already find is that the concept of self-ownership is (to me) somewhat self-evident. No one is actually literally controlling you, they are influencing you through a series of methods -- some rather elegant and some rather brutish. There are various means and methods of influence. Now at first glance own would think given the context of this slideshow "I don't want to be influenced by others! It's my life I should be the only influence!" but that is essentially a solipistic philosophy. People appear to actually crave influence from others and to influence others, to have relations with others -- so a curious question is created. At what point does this influence become negative in characteristic to the point where it interferes with your own inner core or concept of self-ownership, and what methods are commonly employed to do so.

I think if the focus was put on that deeper question it would seem a lot more useful/interesting (to me). Simply stating you own yourself doesn't really seem that interesting to me, it seems more like something that's an emotional appeal, a sort of mental reminder to people who have forgotten they have willpower.

[Capitalist Pig]

Admirable but simplistic

I admire it for its simplicity.

[Gilly]

I admire it for its simplicity.

Simplicity does not make something fundamental. It does make it easy to digest.

[Gilly]

My apologies. It's just, debating with statists and socialists is akin to debating with religionists and creationists. Both invoke unwarranted leaps of faith in the providence of central planners.

I'm trying to become a more tolerant person.

Funny, debating with you is similar. Reminds me of talking about evolution with my religious cousins: nothing but a tape reel of generic answers for all objections, always reinforcing and defending their beliefs by reiterating maxims instead of actually addressing objections.

One thing our debates have shown me is that our vantage points on society are actually rather similar, with one major differentiation: in my view, solutions to social problems have to he emergent, and while I began my intellectual life with some rather hardline stances that I fought urgently for people to see the necessary truth in, I've come to see that social problems cannot be prescribed solutions, because ultimately the ideological bloat and structural sluggishness inherent in allowing people free will, which is the basis of peace, necessitates more subtle solutions. An idea for improving society is not valid just because it makes sense with human nature and is a good solution logically. Good ideology comes from culture. Obviously this sounds sheep-like, but in a way its that very "sheepish" factor that makes it good. Championing an ideal is endlessly frustrating and futile if you imagine that the world will jump on your bandwagon just because you are right. The more important changes that can actually be made in our world stem from relating actual issues and current events to a set of more practicable ideals, a half-baked ideology if you will, one that strikes a compromise between the current system and the ideal one. This makes it accessible and not so hard to swallow; sure, it takes away the fun factor and shock value of telling people youd like to burn paper currency and piss on its ashes, but on the flip side, you might actually change some mi.ds. Shouting maxims down from an ivory tower is a recipe for making you look crazy and decreases your chances of actually impacting people's points of view; the person who desires change more than being right sees that people don't heed ideologues and preachers...unless they're already in the church. The person who is observant and methodical sees that people have to be coaxed, made to turn to face the proper direction and be allowed to walk for themselves, rather than be tied up and dragged backwards.

Personally after all these years you and jewstin have actually gotten me to read some Mises and consider your ideas. And I'm glad I have, and I'm glad for all our discussions because it's shown me things I hadn't considered. But it would have taken days rather than years if you had been been less intent on debunking my views and promoting yours, and more, hmmm, conversational. Now I'll grant that I'm kind of an exception, I happen to have a brain and am fairly open-minded, which is more than can be said of most. But really the truth is, when your attitude is condescending and know-it-all, you only stand to make enemies with people who don't already agree with you.

Now, granted, some people are drawn in by sullen arrogance, like Galen, but unless you want to be President of the Autarchic States of Intellectually Dependent Fruitflies, you might want to switch up your game.

[Capitalist Pig]

I CAN'T DEAL WITH DISSENT SO I JUST SCREAM AND SHOUT AND BREAK ALL THE TOYS IN THE PLAYPEN

[Gilly]

lol wat?

[Creepy-male]

I watched the rest, it gets better.

I think it is very interesting how they mentioned throughout history good people have empowered evil people through them requesting force to be exerted on their behalf. I found it interesting because typically its usually looked at from one perspective or the other. The people are held up high and considered to pure and virtuous victims of authority or the aristocrats, the in group, the "nobles" are considered to be the pure and virtuous ones, the patricians, and the people the mere plebs are considered to be the corrupt ones. Most of the stances I see people take on social issues usually have an element of one outlook or the other.

This video seems to suggest that it is actually not one elements but the link between them -- the cultural model of people empowering public officials to act forceful on their behalf that is the problem. I think that's accurate, I dislike people that try to divide the issue into us vs them, the people vs government, and are unaware that people create governments, and that a large part of what exists is the product of human willpower over the course of history.

[woofwoofl]

I CAN'T DEAL WITH DISSENT SO I JUST SCREAM AND SHOUT AND BREAK ALL THE TOYS IN THE PLAYPEN

gonna put on a cowboy hat and shoot a laptop computer in the face

[Ave]

You can tell it was made by an objectivist; its extremely utopic. I dont think it can work out in practice, at least not all of it. To some extent some of it already does exist, and I actually agree with most of it except for two points: First I dont agree you dont have a right to seek the protection of authroties for your own good, as long as these authorties are there in the name of government and are only doing there job. Then again this guy who made the slideshow doesnt seem to believe in government. Secondly I do think that in some societies, authorities have the right to impose their will onto others, if theyve acquired that right. Thats how it works folks. Saying it doesnt work that way isnt gonna make a Stalin go away, and the best way for people to avoid being deported into a work camp is to avoid electing corrupt leaders in the first place(****** was democratically elected "what luck for us leaders that men do not think"). Mainly the last point Im not adovacating totalitarianship Im simply trying to prevent it: I think preaching "authorites have no right" to do such and such is playing the ostrich, and isnt gonna make the problem go away.

[Pa3s]

Thats how it works folks.

↑ Because of beliefs like this, nothing ever changes.

and the best way for people to avoid being deported into a work camp is to avoid electing corrupt leaders in the first place

What if positions of authority corrupt people by default?

[Ave]

↑ Because of beliefs like this, nothing ever changes.

Hmm. What do you mean exactly? History is wrought with changes, change leads to revolution, revolution leads to war, and war leads new order. But the new order is usually just as corrupt as the old: Its just that the people oppressed have now become the oppressors. Look, all Im saying is that if everyone adhered to the beliefs of not using force to get what they wanted, the world would be perfect indeed. But I dont trust my fellow humans (at least not all of them) to really have an absence of authority to protect us, because humans by nature are corrupt and wouldnt adhere to the "no force" principle especially in the absence of authorties. Call me fatalistic, maybe I am, but I am not convinced of the benigness of the human race.

EDIT: could have been my tone, and not my beliefs that seemed unpleasant? Like I had an "thats how it is, and it cant be changed" attitude. If so, I think I may have been misunderstood.

What if positions of authority corrupt people by default?

I would say that its humans who are corrupt and seek positions of authority as a result.

Do you think Im being overly fatalistic in my views of human nature? If yes, then how can I look at things differently?

[Pa3s]

I didn't want to attack you, it's just... there are always the same arguments, you know?

Hmm. What do you mean exactly? History is wrought with changes, change leads to revolution, revolution leads to war, and war leads new order. But the new order is usually just as corrupt as the old: Its just that the people oppressed have now become the oppressors.

With my statement above, I was mostly speaking of the situation today. We're all okay now, there is no war in our countries and we don't suffer from poverty and illnesses. But everyone keeps complaining about the government. Of course, things could be better, but "what are you going to do? It's just as it is, we can't change it so let's keep it that way...". I don't get this mentality (not referring to you alone). You either accept the situation as it is and live your life, or you oppose it and do something about it. At least voice your opinion and think about alternativs if you don't like it.

Besides that, you're right of course. Everything is changing very quickly. But people who genuinely oppose authority at all wouldn't want to overthrow the people in charge just to be the rulers themselves. That means actual anarchists will never become oppressors (I'm not saying that nobody would even try to oppress people in an anarchist society), because this would be an oxymoron.

Look, all Im saying is that if everyone adhered to the beliefs of not using force to get what they wanted, the world would be perfect indeed. But I dont trust my fellow humans (at least not all of them) to really have an absence of authority to protect us, because humans by nature are corrupt and wouldnt adhere to the "no force" principle especially in the absence of authorties.

I might be naive and far from reality in this matter, but I imagine that people would be able to handle conflicts themselves in this kind of society. Authorities can always be abused and who guarantees for a fair judgement? If some central authority dictates the laws and standards, it's likely to be skewed, anyway. Have you seen this comparison? (I know, it's a rather extreme case, but it's just an example.)


Where is the justice here?

I would say that its humans who are corrupt and seek positions of authority as a result.

Wouldn't it be better then to give nobody the right to rule others in the first place since you can never know who has "good" intentions and who doesn't?

Do you think Im being overly fatalistic in my views of human nature? If yes, then how can I look at things differently?

I'm not sure, maybe you are just being realistic and I'm the dreamer. I can't tell.

EDIT: Yeah, it came across like this, but nvm, I got what you mean.

[Ave]

I didn't want to attack you, it's just... there are always the same arguments, you know?

No worries.

With my statement above, I was mostly speaking of the situation today. We're all okay now, there is no war in our countries and we don't suffer from poverty and illnesses. But everyone keeps complaining about the government. Of course, things could be better, but "what are you going to do? It's just as it is, we can't change it so let's keep it that way...". I don't get this mentality (not referring to you alone). You either accept the situation as it is and live your life, or you oppose it and do something about it. At least voice your opinion and think about alternativs if you don't like it.

Yeah, I kinda got that you were talking about the world today, which might be more pertinent than a puerly universal appraoch. I dont like the situation in the world as it is today, with the crises and all, Im just not sure what the solution is. I dont know if rushing into a revolution too quickly is wise; look at countries like Egypt for example. Its almost like the governments have put us in a lose-lose situation where if we stay with the status quo, we lose, if we revolt we lose too.

I might be naive and far from reality in this matter, but I imagine that people would be able to handle conflicts themselves in this kind of society. Authorities can always be abused and who guarantees for a fair judgement? If some central authority dictates the laws and standards, it's likely to be skewed, anyway. Have you seen this comparison? (I know, it's a rather extreme case, but it's just an example.)


Where is the justice here?

I guess you have a point here; "justice" is basically a reflection of who has the most money. This is fucked up.

Wouldn't it be better then to give nobody the right to rule others in the first place since you can never know who has "good" intentions and who doesn't?

Well, who would ensure such an agreement would actually exist? That people would follow it? Are you possibly suggesting some kind of "mutual trust among fellows"? That type of thing seems to work for small groups, but you might have trouble applying it to a large scale society where people are anonymous to each other. This naturally leads me to think we should live in smaller groups, that might work out, idk.

You were suggesting eliminating money altogther, does that mean you are suggesting eliminating property and ownership as well?

[Pa3s]

Well, who would ensure such an agreement would actually exist? That people would follow it? Are you possibly suggesting some kind of "mutual trust among fellows"?

I'm not thinking of a informal or formal agreement of of any kind. People should simply be aware of others who strive to rule and prevent them to take over. As you know, the easiest way to become a dictator is to make the people belief that it's the best thing to do. It's a bit like the movie title "Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came"... You can only be oppressed if you let them oppress you (this applies more to the collective of the people because rebellious individuals can be silenced quite easily). In a ideal case, any uprising authoritarian structure will be discovered and smashes, unless... the people actually want it. If it's based on genuine free will, there's actually no reason to oppose it. However, a reason might quickly emerge if social imbalances start to happen.

You were suggesting eliminating money altogther, does that mean you are suggesting eliminating property and ownership as well?

As I've said before, I'm tentatively agreeing with Bakunin's collectivist anarchism, based on the basic things I know about it. Other than communist anarchists, I'd keep the money simply as a tool to measure value and to exchange values. It's also not necessary (and not desireable either) to totally eliminate property. It doesn't matter if people earn more money than others as long as everyone can afford a decend life standard. However, what definitely has to go is the possibilities which are offered by capitalism, namely earning money without direct work effort. That means you shouldn't be able to run a factory (it's collectivized and run by a council of workers), you also can't buy any shares of businesses or have large farms or forests. You shouldn't be able to rent out houses or flats for money. (The tricky part is to determine where's the limit of property as in "how many houses can you own while other people don't have a home?" I personally believe the natural limit of maximum consumption is a good guideline, you can only live in one fully equipped house at a time, right?) Basically, you should not be able to let either your money or your property work for you. And since the relation of employer and employee is a authoritarian relation as well (because of the financial dependence of the employee), you can't let other people work for you. That doesn't include hiring a plumber to fix your pipes of course, since this is just a temporary job and also the only way the plumber can sell their services. Btw, I'm actually pretty sure that if it would be successful, it evolve into anarcho-communism over time, anyway. Simply because we'll have too few necessary jobs to justify an income. But that's no problem since it's actually meant to happen that way. However, I'll keep reading about that stuff and I'll finally come up with a coherent opinion on this.