Nilokeras wrote:Pan-Pacific Unity wrote:Anarchism to me looks to be little more than liberal ideology taken to the point of parody, obsessed with an abstract ideal of freedom to the detriment of everything else. Ultimately, it's little more than the petit-bourgeois desire for autonomy propped up by a moral critique of 'authoritarianism', which generally seems to mean whatever rules and systems a particular anarchist dislikes. Needless to say, I don't see much potential in this schema.
A strange notion given the literally millions of peasants and proletarians who launched the great anarchist movements of the last century, and who eagerly expropriated and redistributed the means of production held by the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois
Ponder this: what happens to peasants once you redistribute land to them which is then held in their own name? What happens to workers who become co-owners of their place of work?
Ifreann wrote:Duvniask wrote:You've been around long enough to remember that this is the exact same spiel NSG went through in its libertarian/anarcho-capitalist phase. It was bad then and it's just as bad now.
Nah, the ancaps would be telling you that as long as you own the property, you can do whatever you want to the river, and no one else's rights can in any way interfere with that. And then they'd probably have something to say about the age of consent.The mystical force I refer to is in reality the threat of sanction, violence, or force and the active employment of it should the mere threat of it fail to suffice.
Is it meant to be significant in some way for you to point out that if you were to try and poison people they might use violence to defend themselves? Are you about to tell me that self defence is actually coercion?
What is coercion to you and what is not? I would argue self-defense involves the element of coercion, especially if it is preemptive (suppose I plan to poison a river and haven't yet done) or if it seeks to deter future transgressions. These people who would have some grievance against me could decide to deprive me of the means with which I could have poisoned them. See also what Pan-Pacific Unity said.
And speaking of transgressions, is it "self-defense" if I break an agreement and someone decides I need to be six feet under because it hurt them in some way? Is it "self-defense" if I commit fraud, mislead or otherwise exploit someone, even if they voluntarily agree to it, and they only learn after the fact and then use some sort of force against me? Is it "self-defense" if I murder some totally unrelated third party whose life or death has seemingly no material impact on you, yet you decide to attack anyway out of some obvious moral grievance stemming from my act?