As I expected, you didn't answer my question. Define violence?
I personally, would define it as the use of physical coercion directly against another person. Though I guess you could expand it to animals for a technical definition, though here an ethical one is more important.
if you are saying that theft isn't violence and therefore it is justified then I think you're crazy but fine I will define violence for you: "behaviour that is coercive, imposing or painful to others" - sure, I understand that it's not a perfect definition, but I am obviously generalising violence and coercion because they both involve the overriding of the will of another person illegitimately. but still, if you *are* implying that stealing isn't at least coercion (which is, to some extent, violence, or the effects of violence) to invalidate it in a general sense then that's still crazy in my honest opinion
if you are saying that theft isn't violence and therefore it is justified
I didn't say therefore it's justified anywhere, just that it isn't necessarily violent.
then I think you're crazy but fine I will define violence for you: "behaviour that is coercive, imposing or painful to others" - sure, I understand that it's not a perfect definition, but I am obviously generalising violence and coercion because they both involve the overriding of the will of another person illegitimately. but still, if you *are* implying that stealing isn't at least coercion (which is, to some extent, violence, or the effects of violence) to invalidate it in a general sense then that's still crazy in my honest opinion
Stealing does not necessarily require physically coercing or causing pain to another person. If you steal someone's car because they accidentally forgot to lock it, no physical violence is required.
I guess, to get to the point: are you essentially saying that violation of property rights is inherently violent regardless of the actual physical and observable events?
I didn't say therefore it's justified anywhere, just that it isn't necessarily violent.
then what's the real point of correcting me? being anal?
Stealing does not necessarily require physically coercing or causing pain to another person. If you steal someone's car because they accidentally forgot to lock it, no physical violence is required.
I guess, to get to the point: are you essentially saying that violation of property rights is inherently violent regardless of the actual physical and observable events?
it involves violation of the will, which is what violence resembles.
then what's the real point of correcting me? being anal?
You refereed to violence in defence of property as "an exercise of self-defence against illegitimate and initial violence". If this "initial violence" is no such thing, this argument collapses.
it involves violation of the will, which is what violence resembles.
Anytime someone does something someone else doesn't want them to do, the latter's will is violated. Is this violence?
You refereed to violence in defence of property as "an exercise of self-defence against illegitimate and initial violence". If this "initial violence" is no such thing, this argument collapses.
Anytime someone does something someone else doesn't want them to do, the latter's will is violated. Is this violence?
okay, obviously, you are focusing on the fact that I used the word "violence", and to be honest, I can't even remember the context of the original usage - "violence" was meant to suggest "imposing" or "coercive" behaviour. theft and violence are both imposing and coercive things.
Would I be correct in understanding left-wing libertarians as believing that private property is theft, on the grounds that all private property exists because at some point some man decided to fence in a piece of land and proclaim it his, and maintain it by armed force, in spite of the fact that before that it was communally owned? If so, on what basis do left-wing libertarians base said communal ownership? Natural rights?
Collective ownership is inherently more democratic, and satisfies the preferences of a greater number of people.
I'm primarily a utilitarian, but my political ideal is a libertarian socialist society precisely because it's the society that a group of pure utilitarians would live in, as there would be no need for the state or capitalism.
It is a shame that we have to make the distinction between left-libertarians and right-"libertarians", given that capitalism is inherently at odds with libertarianism, which as - and still is - all about dismantling hierarchical structures based upon authority. At best, capitalism is individually rational, but it leads to an outcome that nobody wants: it's collectively irrational.
okay, obviously, you are focusing on the fact that I used the word "violence", and to be honest, I can't even remember the context of the original usage - "violence" was meant to suggest "imposing" or "coercive" behaviour. theft and violence are both imposing and coercive things.
I'd say violence and coercion are more or less the same thing, but never mind.
Whatever you call it, you're basing this upon an assumed theory of property, which I guess is essentially what I'm trying to break this down to.
If you're insinuating that they're not "real" anarchists then rest assured they think of you as not really anarchists either.
True, but anarchism is a longstanding real political movement with a substantial history, and interacts with real life political and social issues. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new largely internet-based gimmick that spends most of its time circlejerking.
I'd say violence and coercion are more or less the same thing, but never mind.
Whatever you call it, you're basing this upon an assumed theory of property, which I guess is essentially what I'm trying to break this down to.
it's a theory not based on something arbitrary, it's entirely logical and tractable 1) "I own myself, therefore I own my time and energy, aka my body and it's applications." 2) "if I own my body, time and energy, then I own the effects of my body, time and energy." 3) "therefore, I own what I mix my labour and time into because it becomes an extension of myself" "therefore, individual property rights must exist on this basis"
or: 1) "my thoughts = my will" "my body = my freedom" 2) "my body in the universe = the universalisation of my will" "my body upon material = my will upon that material" 3) "aka. I control something because I transfer my will into it, and it becomes my own"
and, of course, I'm assuming that coercion is wrong, so to simply say "I can mix my time/labour into your property to make it mine" is wrong because it is simply to suggest "I can mix my time and labour into YOU and you can become my property" because my property is really an extension of myself, just like my body is, as I transfer my will/energies into it. the only way to transfer my property to another person is to transfer my will with their will (contract)
All anarchy is stupid. But anarcho-socialism appears to be more consistent.
Anarcho-socialism is incoherent. Socialism requires a central authority to implement; everything about socialist policies has to be mandated by force. How would this work in an anarchy?
Anarcho-capitalism, whether you agree with it or not, is at least a coherent concept.
Anarcho-socialism is incoherent. Socialism requires a central authority to implement; everything about socialist policies has to be mandated by force. How would this work in an anarchy?
Anarcho-capitalism, whether you agree with it or not, is at least a coherent concept.
Anarcho-socialism has been much more successful than anarcho-capitalism from what I see. The most successful example of an anarcho-socialist society is the kibbutz system in Israel. Haven't seen any such examples of an anarcho-capitalist society. Capitalism requires a central system - the state - to act as a referee and stop people from aggressing against each other, as they will inevitably do when left unchecked.
Anarcho-socialism has been much more successful than anarcho-capitalism from what I see. The most successful example of an anarcho-socialist society is the kibbutz system in Israel. Haven't seen any such examples of an anarcho-capitalist society. Capitalism requires a central system - the state - to act as a referee and stop people from aggressing against each other, as they will inevitably do when left unchecked.
People can only aggress against each other in a capitalist society?
Anarcho-socialism is incoherent. Socialism requires a central authority to implement; everything about socialist policies has to be mandated by force. How would this work in an anarchy?
Anarcho-capitalism, whether you agree with it or not, is at least a coherent concept.
Capitalism has always required force to enclose common land and deprive people of access to it, and uses central authority to defend capitalist ownership of property. There is nothing forceful about common ownership.