A repository of ridiculousness from one Philippe James, taken from;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYt3TgnfbyU
PJ
Anarcho-capitalists do not want maximum liberty, that is simply a lie. And maximum liberty does not entail increasing 'maximum coercion on the other side'.
Ancaps are against liberty because they advocate an authoritarian capitalist property regime backed by force. They advocate an unequal, hierarchical world in which some people have power and control whilst others do not.
PJ - directed at Jesse Thomas
If you're a so-called "ancap" then you're not any sort of anarchist. You are an authoritarian, you are not against coercion, and you advocate theft on a massive scale.
JT
Ha, good one. By not advocating theft or any other form of coercion, somehow I advocate theft and coercion. Leftist logic
PJ
No, the problem is that your ideology is nothing but deceitful garbage rhetoric and lies. Nothing any of you people ever say is the truth. You just deceitfully redefine words to pretend that up is down, black is white, etc. It's pathetic. Only completely ignorant morons take your idiotic joke of an ideology seriously. Now fuck off you right-wing authoritarian, fake anarchist liar.
PJ
oh, and 'structural violence' is ultimately based on direct, physical violence, you ignorant moron.
[teehee he thinks Marxist structural violence is real]
MJH
Just out of curiosity, why are some people taking centrist liberalism (ancaps are liberal anarchists or anarcho-liberals really) to mean the same thing as right-statism, or fascism, considering that fascism is the combination of economic corporatism with veneration of the state or a strong leader...
Where did this conflation begin, and why?
Also, liberty by definition means 'don't initiate violence' so who's going to be legally permitted to initiate this oppression the OP waffled on about...? If you say self-defence counts as aggression then you have just committed an 'up-is-down' absurdity and nobody need take you seriously.
PJ
Ancaps aren't anarchists of any sort.
Enforcing capitalist property claims and rules is not the same thing as 'self-defence'.
Stop lying.
[and the real nonsense begins]
MJH
All too easy...
---------------------------
"Ancaps aren't anarchists of any sort."
Unless you're claiming IP rights to the word anarchist, shush.
---------------------------
"Enforcing capitalist property claims and rules is not the same thing as 'self-defence'."
Defending anything more than my own body is bad, then...
You just argued against the entire division of labour, all surety of ownership, and trade...
No word of a lie, friend.
PJ
"Unless you're claiming IP rights"
Typically idiotic ancap comment. I don't need to claim IP rights in order to say that up is not down, black is not white, authoritarian is not libertarian. Ancaps are not anarchists. You are right wing authoritarians deceitfully trying to pretend to be anarchists, that is all.
"Defending anything more than my own body is bad, then..."
I didn't say that, you idiot. What I said is that enforcing capitalist property claims and rules is not the same thing as self defence. That is a fact. So I would appreciate it if you didn't lie.
"You just argued against the entire division of labour, all surety of ownership, and trade"
I didn't say that, you idiot. What I said is that enforcing capitalist property claims and rules is not the same thing as self defence. That is a fact. So I would appreciate it if you didn't lie.
Please stop lying.
And I am not your friend.
[up-not-down is a description of the external world, not an idea that comes from humans - anarchism is...]
MJH
Every criticism I offered above is in response to your stated positions. If you are agin' private property then you are agin' the consequences of private property... QED you are agin' money, the modern division of labour, defence of anything more than one's own body, et cetera... this isn't rocket science. I didn't manipulate or strawman you.
If you can claim a reason that ancaps are not anarchists, fair enough, but you haven't. You just keep saying this bunch of "let's leave each other alone" types are all somehow fascist murderers and pillagers... which is utterly bizarre to hear, and keep hearing. What part of 'live and let live' did you not understand?
I just want to see your working; I want to understand how you came to se anarcho-capitalism the way you do. Help me out, good man/woman.
Also, I am not insulting you; try to refrain from doing so in my direction, eh?
PJ
I didn't say that I am against private property. What I said is that enforcing capitalist property (or private property if you prefer) claims and rules is not the same thing as self defence.
So stop pretending that it is.
"a reason that ancaps are not anarchists"
They support the domination of man by man, rule by man over man, the exact opposite of what anarchists believe.
"let's leave each other alone"
That's not what you believe. You just use this sort of deceitful rhetoric because you are a liar.
You advocate a system in which some people forcibly control the things other people use and need in order to live, and use this power to make them work for them and obey them.
MJH
"They support the domination of man by man, rule by man over man, the exact opposite of what anarchists believe."
Then you are against private property. But since to be against private (exclusionary) property rights is to be in favour of inclusionary property rights you are presumably advocating that we return to the way of life of such exemplar of anarcho-communism as the Tiv, Piaroa, Merina and Maasai? Since they are all pre-civilised tribes I'll pass.
If me enjoying exclusionary control over stuff I have given time and effort ( if I buy it it's with money I worked for ) is immoral and somebody else imposing themselves on me and my acquired space is moral then you are favouring attack over defence.
Presumably that favour wouldn't extend to you killing me for my water if there was only enough for me and I had peacefully acquired previously...
PJ
all anarchists are against capitalist private property. Mutualists, individualists, syndicalists, communists etc.
[handily forgetting that capitalism is a set of activities, or the consequence of that set of activities, not a system of property rights]
Capitalism is a system in which some people control the resources of a society and thereby rule over those that don't. Alternatives to this include egalitarian distributions of property, common ownership and personal property, property systems based on the principle of occupancy and use. All these alternatives are explicitly intended to abolish domination by owner classes over everyone else - which is what you support. And no, these alternatives do not entail going back to tribal living. You obviously know absolutely nothing at all about anarchism.
[so he wants morality by quota]
You say that capitalist private property is 'exclusionary' whereas other forms aren't. This isn't strictly true as capitalist property is subject to law, given that it is a legal creation. However, personal property is at least equally exclusionary, but it doesn't entail domination over others as it doesn't entail controlling the things that others use and need.
[no, humans extend their autonomy over themselves to the outside world around them and figure out boundaries where one person's jurisdiction ends and another's begins - this happened peacefully today through buying and selling, but sometimes occurs violently through such political means as wars]
"you are favouring attack over defence."
Typical deceitful, idiotic ancap rhetoric. You are the one who advocates attack, violence, force, coercion. You advocate domination, control and rule over others. You're just a liar.
[if Person A already controls X, and Person B walks in and takes over X just because they have a good idea of how to employ its use, then Person B is still stealing from A by not giving A a choice in the matter - that is, the chance to consent - consent is my yardstick of morality, quotas are Philippe's, and by extension all AnComs']
"if there was only enough for me and I had peacefully acquired previously..."
You're saying that it's moral to make someone die by forcibly denying them water which you have in your possession, because of the principle of 'finders keepers'. Any sane individual with a sense of human dignity would realise what a cowardly, pathetic position that is to take.
[he even quotes the vital part of the thought experiment and then ignores. Only enough for me = I die if I give it away... but furthermore he seems to think]
JT
No monopoly on major force = no state, genius.
The only "power" they have is to offer to sell you stuff or offer to buy stuff from you. So oppressive.
PJ
so states don't actually exist, according to you, because there is no monopoly of force across the whole planet. Instead, different groups only have control over different parts of the planet. There is no monopoly, therefore states don't exist. The only "power" governments have is to offer to sell you access to their territories, in exchange for obedience to their rules and payment of taxes.
JT
There is certainly a monopoly on major force within the region known as the "United States". That's a state. Typical left "anarchist", doesn't even know what a state is.
PJ
but that's not a state, according to you, as you can go and live on some other part of the planet. The US government has no power over you. You choose to live in its territory, to abide by its rules and to pay its fees in exchange for the access and other service it provides you with. It's totally voluntary and consensual, according to you. And if you choose not to obey its rules and to pay its taxes, then you are a violent aggressor, a trespasser and a thief.
JT - degenerates presumably out despair...
I'm oppressing you by not giving you my stuff. I'm ruling over you. I'm enslaving you. Blame all of your problems on me. I'm a greedy capitalist exploiter thief if I offer to sell you something. It's okay for you to enslave me if you personally benefit in some way.
PJ
The government is oppressing you by not giving you its stuff for free. It's enslaving you. Blame all your problems on it. It's a greedy exploiter thief if it offers to sell you something. It's ok for you to enslave it if you personally benefit in some way.
JT
The difference is it doesn't offer to sell anything. It takes by force.
PJ
It offers to sell you access to and use of its territory and all the things therein, exactly like any landlord or property owner.
JT
Except it doesn't own the land
PJ
Ownership is merely a subset of authority.
It's just a particular, specific form of authority.
Authority can be either legitimate or illegitimate, justified or unjustified. Feudal monarchs 'owned' their territories - does this mean that their authority was justified? No.
Whether authority is justified or not has nothing to do with whether it has this word 'ownership' attached to it.
JT
The state didn't homestead the land, or buy it from somebody who owned it, so they have no legitimate authority over it.
MJH
No King ever homesteaded shit...
PJ
"The state didn't homestead the land... so they have no legitimate authority over it."
That’s a nonsensical argument.
What you are saying is that if someone performs a particular type of labour on a defined area of land, they are then morally entitled to exercise some form authority over that area of land, and to use force in certain ways and under certain conditions against others in that area, for some period of time.
[yeah, your moral entitlements around other humans are defined by how you act - how could this ever be otherwise?]
So what you’re doing here is making rules.
You are claiming the authority to make rules for what people can and can’t do, what people’s actions entitle them to, etc.
In essence you are acting like a rule-making government.
Where does your authority to make these rules come from?
You can’t say that it comes from ‘homesteading’, as that would be completely circular.
[then no authority to set rules can ever come from a set of actions taken during the course of life - congrats, you just destroyed logic]
JT
It comes from homesteading, and that's not circular.
PJ
You clearly didn't understand my comment. Try reading it again.
JT
Nothing in your comment demonstrates that homesteading is circular reasoning.
PJ
The word 'homesteading' refers to certain types of actions. Actions are not circular reasoning, so obviously 'homesteading' is not circular reasoning. But your argument is circular, however.
What you're saying is:
"Rule 1: if I perform certain types of actions on this piece of land, I am then entitled to exercise authority over this piece of land and to use force against other people on this piece of land."
I then ask: "Where does your authority to make this rule come from?"
And you reply: "It comes from the fact that if I perform certain types of actions on this piece of land, I am then entitled to exercise authority over this piece of land and to use force against other people on this piece of land."
I reply: "That's circular."
[once again you are unavoidably saying that no entitlement can ever stem from human actions in the external world]
JT
The "authority" comes from the certain actions (i.e. homesteading). The answer is in the rule, like you said. "If I perform certain types of actions on this piece of land, I am then entitled to exercise authority...". If A, then B. When does B occur? When A occurs. A is homesteading, B is ownership.
You're making it sound like homesteading is just a magic voodoo tap dance people do while standing in a field, then they are the owner of the field. It's quite a bit more than that.
PJ
Let me put it another way.
Why are you entitled to exercise authority over that piece of land if you perform certain actions on it?
Do you understand that it would be circular to reply: "I'm entitled to exercise authority over this piece of land if I perform certain actions on it, because performing certain actions on this piece of land entitles me to exercise authority over it"?
JT
Yes, I understand that. You left out the "if you perform certain actions on it" part, which changes the question entirely.
Since you seem to be some sort of communist/socialist/marxist, I don't expect you to accept this, no matter how clearly or rationally I lay it out for you. That being said, I'll give it my best shot.
It comes from individual self-ownership.
Let's say, for example, that I have the physical ability to build a chair out of dirt and rocks. It would take me 1 whole day's worth of labor to build the chair.
I get to decide whether or not to build the chair. It's not okay for other people to force me to build the chair against my will(that's called "slavery"). If somebody forces me to build the chair, what they have essentially done is they have taken away from me 1 day of my life. They have stolen 1 day of my life and made it theirs. They have violated my self ownership. This is wrong.
If I choose to build the chair with the intention of using it for myself, it's not okay for someone to come take it after I build it. What they have done, essentially, is take away 1 day of my life from me. They have stolen 1 day of my life and made it theirs. They have violated my self-ownership.
The ethical principle doesn't depend on whether or not the chair is already built.
Replace the word "chair" with "house", "farm", "restaurant", "factory", or pretty much any other thing that people claim to "own". The same concept still applies.
It is perhaps easiest to see when you look at it in the context of today's society. Let's say, for example, I go to work for 10 hours and I get paid $100. If someone were to steal $100 from me, they have essentially stolen 10 hours of my life. That is a violation of self-ownership.
PJ
"You left out the "if you perform certain actions on it" part, which changes the question entirely."
No, I didn't leave that out so I don't know what you are referring to.
JT
you asked "where does your authority to make these rules come from?", so yes you did leave it out of the question I answered. But anyway, it's in the past. I understand your question now, and that's all that matters
PJ
So your argument is as follows.
You: “If I perform certain types of actions on this piece of land, I am then entitled to exercise authority over this piece of land and to use force against other people on this piece of land."
Me: "Why does performing certain types of actions on that piece of land entitle you to exercise authority over that piece of land?"
You: “Because performing those actions takes time. Therefore, if performing those actions did not entitle me to exercise authority over this piece of land, it would be as if the time I spent performing those actions had been stolen from me.”
Me: “Why would it be as if the time you spent performing those actions had been stolen from you?”
You: “Because performing those actions should entitle me to exercise authority over this piece of land.”
Me: “why should performing those actions entitle you to exercise authority over that piece of land?”
You: “because performing those actions takes time. Therefore, if performing those actions did not entitle me to exercise authority over this piece land, it would be as if the time I spent performing those actions had been stolen from me.”
Me: “why would it be as if the time you spent performing those actions had been stolen from you?”
You: “because performing those actions should entitle me to exercise authority over this piece of land.”
Me: “why should performing those actions entitle you to exercise authority over that piece of land?”
What you are doing is called ‘begging the question’ or circular reasoning. You are assuming that your conclusion is true, and then using that assumption as the basis of your argument.
MJH
"Me: "Why does performing certain types of actions on that piece of land entitle you to exercise authority over that piece of land?""
Because of the time and effort involved. To call this circular when the guy is restating the point is ridiculous because it was the act itself that gave rise to the entitlement.
The entitlement can only exist in practice when honoured by at least one other human being, and humans tend to respect the 'first come, first served' rule unless they're exceptionally jealous, callous or sociopathic.
Person A transforms land for his/her use. By definition, Person B did not transform this land. Person A has - and here is the key word Jesse must have left out - EARNED* the right to decide what to do with the land by having transformed it.
There are two reasons why it follows for use by humans of unowned resources to permit those resources to become owned.
1. Because de facto this is what happens whatever arguments we want to make. A human actually extends the control they enjoy over their choices concerning their body to the stuff - land, a hovel/house/tools - that they have worked to meet their needs.
2. Other people exist and we need to get along. This is the social justification, whereby we say the person who worked something can claim it BECAUSE all the people who didn't work it haven't. This is how private property can be justified.
[Moral theories only have meaning when a moral agent meets another moral agent. Non-moral agents (animals) are not expected to respect property rights as they don't understand them. But humans must entitle each other to a sound and consistent property regime otherwise chaos will reign - and homestead through the mixing of labour is actually a practical rather than moral process as real change is being exacted upon resources in the physical world to make them useful to the homesteader]
And since AnComs are supposedly in favour of private ownership of anything that can't be used to exploit labour (capital goods / means of production) I don't see why homesteading is a threat to you anyway.
Even if the principle is right, we're not saying that this is how America was actually claimed, or anywhere else for which historical records are available. Nobody is saying that.
These two logics have to hold because otherwise no human can be said to earn anything by their actions in the external world. Good luck debunking that.
You want Person B to be allowed to use the land that Person A worked to claim without Person A's permission, and you think we're being unreasonable for saying that, if Person A is spooked by this, Person A can potentially kill Person B in self-defence.
But here's the thing; you don't know either person and you don't know how Person B's incursion will look to Person A.
Also, it's highly unlikely that Person A would actually employ deadly force since it introduces the risk that Person B will kill Person A first. When somebody has just laboured to claim something they tend to prefer not to risk it in an episode of bravado.
Person A will likely just tell Person B to either get off their land or at least stop employing its use. Hereafter the ball's in Person B's court; (s)he can continue, attack Person A or leave. The second would make Person B an outlaw to the NAA/NAP since to initiate aggression is to tacitly agree that initiating aggression is OK, making it OK for anyone around Person B to stop them from their aggression by whatever means they have to hand, including killing Person B.
If Person B continues then (s)he is continuing to trespass and taking her/his life in her/his hands.
Person A earned the land, so by definition Person B did not. Person B had better respect law and order or (s)he can expect to be injured or killed when Person A, by whatever means, removes Person B from A's land.
Of course this all assumes they don't come to some kind of agreement, since A could sell part of his/her land to B in return for a certain number of days' labour from B on A's land.
This would be a consensual arrangement between both persons and if anybody is starting to seethe at the mention of trade then too bad.
This is how humans who are not intimately familiar with each other behave toward each other.
P.S
• You earn money at a job by actually doing the job as opposed to not doing it. Otherwise I can justify being paid for someone else's wor- wait a minute that's the entire point of Left-Statism!
Comments
Post a Comment