Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

I also find anarchism to be a silly ideology, but saying that is not a good way to explain why anarchism is a bad thing.

It's such a nonsensical fringe ideology that it's hardly necessary to debate it. The people that subscribe to anarchism are probably not people who are going to listen to any form of argumentation, but the ideology is also not dangerous because it is so absurd. You ask 100 people on the streets if you think society can function without a government, and you'd be lucky to find even 1 who said i could.

society can function just fine without a government, just not a large society.

[Margno]

Are positive and negative liberties really so separable? If, for example, you had a positive right to health and a negative right not to be harmed, wouldn't both have the same consequences so long as you accept the premise that one can harm through inaction? The principle could be rewritten: wherever possible, a person must maximize the health of others.
If your point is that people have a responsibility to act in the benefit of others, (or, to put it in the inverse, that people have positive rights which others must respect, or alternatively still, that it is possible to violate another person's rights through inaction) then I would agree, although egoist anarchists presumably would not.
But I don't quite see what you mean by a compromise between positive and negative rights. In most of the cases I can think of, I guess it seems to me that one right is in conflict with another, as when one's own right to food is in conflict with someone else's right to life (in the case of giving food to a starving man.) But is the positive expression of a right ever in conflict with the negative expression of the same right?

I mean that both negative and positive liberty is important. It'd be unjust to only respect negative liberty - as positive liberty is equally important, and we live in a wealthy, structured society that is able to protect both negative and positive liberty. Just as it'd be wrong to only respect positive liberty. For example, it'd be immoral to abolish all forms of tax collecting at the expense of free education. However, it would also be immoral to impose 100% effective tax rates on people to provide free education. So, a balance must be ensured - we can respect positive liberty (by providing free education when it does not wholly restrict negative liberty), while respecting negative liberty (by imposing a smaller tax burden, that still allows for the ownership of private property).
Since we live in a wealthy society, we are able to respect both rights: if we lived in a society where one person had $1 trillion everyone else had no money, it would be immoral to confiscate all of the $1 trillion to protect someone's positive liberty (the right to education) - because that would completely destroy their property rights. However, in a wealthy society like ours, we are able to respect both negative and positive liberty: we can collect some tax to provide some free education, police protection, health care, etc - while people's right to own private property is not wholly infringed (as only a portion of their income goes to tax).

So it's a balancing act - social democracy is about combining negative liberty, positive liberty, solidarity, justice, social justice, equality of opportunity. This means that things are able to be cohesive: all people can have a relative right to income security, education, and health care - while all people can have a right to own private property in a free market. This mix of negative and positive liberty results in a decent, progressive, and prosperous society that achieves social justice for all people - while advancing the overall human condition. It benefits both the individual and the collective good.

Both negative and positive liberty can complement each other, and the protection of both is necessary in a just society.

So what framework do you propose for striking up these compromises, when various liberties are in conflict, and how does social democracy best follow from it?

[Sociobiology]

I always thought minarchism was just a term for minimal states, for any reason.

The minarchist state has a coercive monopoly on violence. The voluntary state is minimal and doesn't have this coercive monopoly.

which you claim but that is not what is described.
this is getting repetitive, and the boils down to.
A. "my anarchist society will not have X"
B. "What will it have?"
A. goes on to describe X
B. "but that means it has X"
A. you don't understand anarchism!!

it sounds more like you guys don't understand the very thing you are espousing.

[Atlanticatia]

I mean that both negative and positive liberty is important. It'd be unjust to only respect negative liberty - as positive liberty is equally important, and we live in a wealthy, structured society that is able to protect both negative and positive liberty. Just as it'd be wrong to only respect positive liberty. For example, it'd be immoral to abolish all forms of tax collecting at the expense of free education. However, it would also be immoral to impose 100% effective tax rates on people to provide free education. So, a balance must be ensured - we can respect positive liberty (by providing free education when it does not wholly restrict negative liberty), while respecting negative liberty (by imposing a smaller tax burden, that still allows for the ownership of private property).
Since we live in a wealthy society, we are able to respect both rights: if we lived in a society where one person had $1 trillion everyone else had no money, it would be immoral to confiscate all of the $1 trillion to protect someone's positive liberty (the right to education) - because that would completely destroy their property rights. However, in a wealthy society like ours, we are able to respect both negative and positive liberty: we can collect some tax to provide some free education, police protection, health care, etc - while people's right to own private property is not wholly infringed (as only a portion of their income goes to tax).

So it's a balancing act - social democracy is about combining negative liberty, positive liberty, solidarity, justice, social justice, equality of opportunity. This means that things are able to be cohesive: all people can have a relative right to income security, education, and health care - while all people can have a right to own private property in a free market. This mix of negative and positive liberty results in a decent, progressive, and prosperous society that achieves social justice for all people - while advancing the overall human condition. It benefits both the individual and the collective good.

Both negative and positive liberty can complement each other, and the protection of both is necessary in a just society.

So what framework do you propose for striking up these compromises, when various liberties are in conflict, and how does social democracy best follow from it?

Generally, a state is the best vehicle to provide both negative and positive rights and privileges, and uphold liberty.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "how does social democracy best follow from it?"

[Sociobiology]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

I don't see anything about coercion, and I've never heard before that a state was characterized by the coercive monopoly of violence.

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

as are all societies. unless you you the most narrow definition of opportunity in which cases it doesn't apply to modern state either.

[The Flood]

It's such a nonsensical fringe ideology that it's hardly necessary to debate it. The people that subscribe to anarchism are probably not people who are going to listen to any form of argumentation, but the ideology is also not dangerous because it is so absurd. You ask 100 people on the streets if you think society can function without a government, and you'd be lucky to find even 1 who said i could.

society can function just fine without a government, just not a large society.

We do have a large society, though.

And anyway, even a small society still has an informal government. A hunter gatherer tribe has a leader. Even chimps have a social hierarchy.

[Sociobiology]

society can function just fine without a government, just not a large society.

We do have a large society, though.

but many anarchists do not advocate large societies, so a flat statment that you need government if false.

And anyway, even a small society still has an informal government. A hunter gatherer tribe has a leader.

no they don't some tribes do but most bands do not.
also government=/= governance

Even chimps have a social hierarchy.

and?

[Casita]

Even chimps have hierarchy?

[The Flood]

We do have a large society, though.

but many anarchists do not advocate large societies, so a flat statment that you need government if false.

And anyway, even a small society still has an informal government. A hunter gatherer tribe has a leader.

no they don't some tribes do but most bands do not.
also government=/= governance

Even chimps have a social hierarchy.

and?

There are 7 billion people on the planet. We can't have small societies anymore.

Any situation in which there is a leader is not anarchy, leadership = government.

Even chimps have informal governments, that's the point. It is not possible for humans to form societies without governments, and even if it were, it would be utter chaos.

[Conscentia]

Even chimps have hierarchy?

hierarchy =/= state

[Casita]

We are not chimps. Do bacteria have hierarchy? While we are at it, we might as well anthropomorphize the entire natural world.

[Arkolon]

Depends which type of anarchism, because such a broad term encompasses those in favour of violent revolution, the anarcho-punk anarcho-arsonist variety, as well as Kropotkinites and Rothbardians. Voluntaryists, however, and voluntaryism would never have a state with a coercive monopoly on violence.

except that is exactly what has been described for voluntaryists society.

Err, no? Voluntaryism is quintessentially anti-statist and anarchist. They are opposed to the very mechanism you're trying to force into the concept.

[Arkolon]

The minarchist state has a coercive monopoly on violence. The voluntary state is minimal and doesn't have this coercive monopoly.

which you claim but that is not what is described.
this is getting repetitive, and the boils down to.
A. "my anarchist society will not have X"
B. "What will it have?"
A. goes on to describe X
B. "but that means it has X"
A. you don't understand anarchism!!

it sounds more like you guys don't understand the very thing you are espousing.

A: my anarchist society will not have X
B: what will it have?
A: anything but X, while describing what X entails
B: you just described X! anarchy has X!
A: you don't understand anarchism.

[Arkolon]

My point seems to have been misunderstood. Anarchists are traditionally opposed to an institution with a monopoly on force, but others, namely myself and the voluntary statist stripe of voluntaryist pseudo-anarchism (even I don't pretend to be an anarchist), are opposed to any institution with a coercive monopoly on force. You should also search Wikipedia for what a coercive monopoly is, and you should notice that all modern states are coercive monopolies on violence.

as are all societies. unless you you the most narrow definition of opportunity in which cases it doesn't apply to modern state either.

Not all states have to be coercive monopolies on violence. I honestly didn't think that, of all things, that would be challenged.

[Sociobiology]

except that is exactly what has been described for voluntaryists society.

Err, no? Voluntaryism is quintessentially anti-statist and anarchist. They are opposed to the very mechanism you're trying to force into the concept.

opposing it doesn't matter if when asked to describe the society they still include it in the society.

[Sociobiology]

but many anarchists do not advocate large societies, so a flat statment that you need government if false.

no they don't some tribes do but most bands do not.
also government=/= governance

and?

There are 7 billion people on the planet. We can't have small societies anymore.

you know I don't support anarchism in the slightest, right?

Any situation in which there is a leader is not anarchy, leadership = government.

and many tribes as well as most band societies do not have leaders.

Even chimps have informal governments, that's the point. It is not possible for humans to form societies without governments, and even if it were, it would be utter chaos.

except that's how humans naturally form societies.

[Sociobiology]

which you claim but that is not what is described.
this is getting repetitive, and the boils down to.
A. "my anarchist society will not have X"
B. "What will it have?"
A. goes on to describe X
B. "but that means it has X"
A. you don't understand anarchism!!

it sounds more like you guys don't understand the very thing you are espousing.

A: my anarchist society will not have X
B: what will it have?
A: anything but X, while describing what X entails, and including it in the description of how the anarchist society will function
B: you just described X! anarchy has X!
A: you don't understand anarchism.

fixed that for you.

[Sociobiology]

as are all societies. unless you you the most narrow definition of opportunity in which cases it doesn't apply to modern state either.

Not all states have to be coercive monopolies on violence. I honestly didn't think that, of all things, that would be challenged.

then you should not define yourself into a corner. Also by your statement I take it you ARE using the most narrow definition of opportunity?

[Arkolon]

Err, no? Voluntaryism is quintessentially anti-statist and anarchist. They are opposed to the very mechanism you're trying to force into the concept.

opposing it doesn't matter if when asked to describe the society they still include it in the society.

Sorry, I think you might be a bit lost here. Where in the Anarchism thread did the anarchists favour the existence of a monopoly on violence? I'm not even an anarchist.

[Arumdaum]

Even chimps have hierarchy?

Hierarchy doesn't equal a state.

Furthermore, H. sapiens originally didn't have a hierarchy.

[Arkolon]

Not all states have to be coercive monopolies on violence. I honestly didn't think that, of all things, that would be challenged.

then you should not define yourself into a corner. Also by your statement I take it you ARE using the most narrow definition of opportunity?

What do you mean re: opportunity?

[Arkolon]

Even chimps have hierarchy?

Hierarchy doesn't equal a state.

Furthermore, H. sapiens originally didn't have a hierarchy.

Hierarchy is natural. A state isn't. Just a little bit to add on.

[MERIZoC]

Hey, Ark, question for you. Why is Voluntaryism so closely associated with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism? I mean, there are plenty of other ideologies that can be seen as being voluntary. Any from of anarchism, for one.

[Arkolon]

Hey, Ark, question for you. Why is Voluntaryism so closely associated with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism? I mean, there are plenty of other ideologies that can be seen as being voluntary. Any from of anarchism, for one.

I think it's because Rothbard came up with the premise of voluntaryism (natural rights/law, the harm principle, etc) and used them to base his anarcho-capitalism. It's a shame people conflate the two, because it isn't true that all ancaps are voluntaryists, first of all, and neither is it true that all voluntaryists are ancaps. Rothbard also backed his voluntaryism up with the NAP, which protects property as well as individuals, which the Left might not have liked that much. But the harm principle is a more simplistic, all-encompassing basis for voluntaryism.

tl;dr it's mostly because there's Rothbard's signature on the philosophy, and people think that means voluntaryism = ancapism.

[MERIZoC]

Hey, Ark, question for you. Why is Voluntaryism so closely associated with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism? I mean, there are plenty of other ideologies that can be seen as being voluntary. Any from of anarchism, for one.

I think it's because Rothbard came up with the premise of voluntaryism (natural rights/law, the harm principle, etc) and used them to base his anarcho-capitalism. It's a shame people conflate the two, because it isn't true that all ancaps are voluntaryists, first of all, and neither is it true that all voluntaryists are ancaps. Rothbard also backed his voluntaryism up with the NAP, which protects property as well as individuals, which the Left might not have liked that much. But the harm principle is a more simplistic, all-encompassing basis for voluntaryism.

tl;dr it's mostly because there's Rothbard's signature on the philosophy, and people think that means voluntaryism = ancapism.

Okay, thanks for that explanation.