Originally Posted by Mikebert

But libertarians are by their very nature, not particularly sympathetic to others' need to dominate, so why the distaste for taxation on the very rich?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Because they've been bulls**tted by the powers that be... and either don't realize it, or are in denial of it.

That doesn't make much sense, as real libertarians tend to come to the opposite conclusions of the powers that be.

Two libertarian objections to taxation on the very rich:

1) Taxation is theft,* and theft is immoral. This deontological principle trumps potential consequences of heavily taxing the rich.
2) Taxes fund the government, which is illegitimate, and this government commits atrocities at an alarming rate.

*It is theft because they are the rightful owners of such property -- and they may use it however they please. One caveat: it may be (not incorrectly, IMO) argued that existing property titles of the very rich are illegitimate, but I don't think this seriously damages my argument.

I'll respond to other stuff later. Midterms

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That doesn't make much sense, as real libertarians tend to come to the opposite conclusions of the powers that be.

Two libertarian objections to taxation on the very rich:

1) Taxation is theft,* and theft is immoral. This deontological principle trumps potential consequences of heavily taxing the rich.
2) Taxes fund the government, which is illegitimate, and this government commits atrocities at an alarming rate.

*It is theft because they are the rightful owners of such property -- and they may use it however they please. One caveat: it may be (not incorrectly, IMO) argued that existing property titles of the very rich are illegitimate, but I don't think this seriously damages my argument.

I would start with a few of the Marxist perspectives. There is a struggle between the rich and the common man. The common man gets shafted. Something has to be done.

The difference between the Marxist and the Democrat is that the Marxist would utterly destroy the capitalist class, where the Democrat would attempt to set up a favorable balance of power between the two, passing legislation to empower labor unions, require safe working conditions, set minimum wages, limit hours, etc...

It seems that some anarchists at least would destroy the means by which the balance of power is achieved. What they would do would potentially destroy labor unions, allow unsafe working conditions, abolish minimum wage laws, etc... To me, it seems that the practical result of putting anarchists in 'uncontrol' would be repeal of the New Deal, a return to the bad old days of the Gilded Age.

In short, the rich are jerks, and you need coercion to limit the amount of damage that they can do.

Sure, the pretty theoretical anarchist talk is internally consistent, but it ignores the lessons of history. From where I'm sitting, if I'm to take the theoretical talk seriously, I would want to know a lot more about what y'all would do and how you would do it. Neither you nor Justin seem willing to integrate your pretty abstract theories with the real world.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... It seems that some anarchists at least would destroy the means by which the balance of power is achieved. What they would do would potentially destroy labor unions, allow unsafe working conditions, abolish minimum wage laws, etc... To me, it seems that the practical result of putting anarchists in 'uncontrol' would be repeal of the New Deal, a return to the bad old days of the Gilded Age.

In short, the rich are jerks, and you need coercion to limit the amount of damage that they can do.

Sure, the pretty theoretical anarchist talk is internally consistent, but it ignores the lessons of history. From where I'm sitting, if I'm to take the theoretical talk seriously, I would want to know a lot more about what y'all would do and how you would do it. Neither you nor Justin seem willing to integrate your pretty abstract theories with the real world.

That's a great synopsis of my POV. There is always coercion. The difference is who applies it, how it's applied and why. I don't prefer private coercion, and the historical record indicates that this is the result of too little public coercion. If there is a model that makes this not true, then I need to see it. So far it seems to be 'trust us', which should stop any rational thinking anarchist in his or her tracks.

Allow me to second that sentiment expressed by Marx & Lennon... or I guess it would be then thirding the views of Bob Butler ... okay - this is getting too complicated. I just like what he said.

One Gilded Age in America was one too many.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's a great synopsis of my POV. There is always coercion. The difference is who applies it, how it's applied and why. I don't prefer private coercion, and the historical record indicates that this is the result of too little public coercion. If there is a model that makes this not true, then I need to see it. So far it seems to be 'trust us', which should stop any rational thinking anarchist person in his or her tracks.

Fixed it. ™

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I would start with a few of the Marxist perspectives. There is a struggle between the rich and the common man. The common man gets shafted. Something has to be done.

The difference between the Marxist and the Democrat is that the Marxist would utterly destroy the capitalist class, where the Democrat would attempt to set up a favorable balance of power between the two, passing legislation to empower labor unions, require safe working conditions, set minimum wages, limit hours, etc...

This doesn't make sense. A balance of power between two classes defined by an inequality of power?? Where's the balance? What the Democrat does (and the Republican, too, with some tweaks) is preserve the imbalance but make the living/working conditions tolerable, all for the benefit of capitalists. Most libertarian class analysis, especially left-libertarian class analysis, sees the State as actively destroying the means by which the workers and potential competitors can empower themselves. Here's Kevin Carson:

Originally Posted by Kevin Carson

The time-honored "free market" recipe, among the ruling classes, goes like this: 1) rob the producing classes of their traditional property rights in the land, and turn them into tenants at-will of the plutocracy; 2) through coercive controls on the population, like the Combination Laws and Law of Settlement, make it impossible for the producing classes to bargain effectively in the wage market; 3) when the process is complete, talk a lot about how great the free market works, and justify the existing concentration of capital ownership as a result of the superior efficiency of those who came out on top.

It's the same thing over and over throughout industrial history. Today, state-granted privileges in the form of subsidies, patents, copyrights, cartelized-banking, etc., not to mention labor laws like Wagner and Taft-Hartley, have all contributed to the current system which deprives the laboring classes of their bargaining power and restricts competition in the marketplace -- the very thing that regulates what enterprises can get away with. A lot of neo-Marxist analysis pretty much has the same flavor, though they come to different conclusions.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

It seems that some anarchists at least would destroy the means by which the balance of power is achieved. What they would do would potentially destroy labor unions, allow unsafe working conditions, abolish minimum wage laws, etc...

You've got it backwards. Most anarchists would destroy the means by which the plutocracy can run the lives of the productive classes. At least that is the idea.

To me, it seems that the practical result of putting anarchists in 'uncontrol' would be repeal of the New Deal, a return to the bad old days of the Gilded Age.

Again, this would be true only if economic power/inequality could be maintained (or strengthened) without a State apparatus that privileges certain capitalists. Theoretical implications aside, I think history contradicts this.

In short, the rich are jerks, and you need coercion to limit the amount of damage that they can do.

True within certain contexts. But, historically speaking, the State has done the exact opposite of this (I can refer you to a number of sources if you'd like), and it seems naive to suggest that the tide will suddenly shift in the future.

Sure, the pretty theoretical anarchist talk is internally consistent, but it ignores the lessons of history. From where I'm sitting, if I'm to take the theoretical talk seriously, I would want to know a lot more about what y'all would do and how you would do it. Neither you nor Justin seem willing to integrate your pretty abstract theories with the real world.

I don't think you're listening.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Allow me to second that sentiment expressed by Marx & Lennon... or I guess it would be then thirding the views of Bob Butler ... okay - this is getting too complicated. I just like what he said.

I know you're not listening.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I don't think you're listening.

A few of the statists here recently quoted a common view of Marxism. Marx was very good at identifying problems with capitalism, but his solutions were garbage.

I'm viewing your approach to anarchism in a very similar light. You identify some valid problems with society as currently exists. If you were willing to propose fixes, we might have a conversation. It is one thing to say what is wrong, it is something else to lay out a practical path to something better.

The practical path to something better is what I'm not hearing.

During the Guilded Age, there was an interpretation of the Constitution that alleged that Congress could not infringe upon private citizens signing any contract they please. This was interpreted to make any attempts at reforming the economy unconstitutional. Some anarchists (not you Kurt) seem to propose that all economic law should go away, which would essentially duplicate the Gilded Age environment in many respects. If so, the reforms of the New Deal era including the economic controls that subdued boom bust economies would go away. Use of private armies such as the old Pinkerton Agency might again define labor relationships.

It would seem that anarchists see clearly the bad laws while the statists see the good. I would propose that both good and bad exists in the current structure. I would maintain the good while altering or removing the bad. I might properly be called a progressive. I would like to see progress. I see a crisis as a time when some of the worse features of a culture might be removed and replaced. I would like to see major change. I would like to see targeted change.

I am not seeing that the bath water is so dirty that the baby absolutely has to go. If baby, bath water and bassinet absolutely must be thrown out the window, then I'd like some assurances that there are firemen below holding a net.

What I am not hearing is an agenda, a plan. I am hearing whines and cries. As best I understand it, this may be because incremental reform might fix things such that a total anarchist revolution would become unnecessary or inappropriate. As best I understand it, the solution is to whine, cry and do nothing until all the problems suddenly spontaneously fix themselves.

Color me dubious.

from Matt

I know you're not listening.

Oh Matt, here we go again. Why is it that when people disagree with the anarcho-libertarians we seem to get a version of

a- you are not listening to me
b- you did not read what I wrote
c- you do not understand my wisdom and brilliance
d -you just don't get it

For the umpteenth time, you have been heard, your words have been read, your points have been thought about and considered, the arguments you have raised have been weighed against other information, and after all that.... they have been rejected.

Nothing personal Matt.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

...

I don't think you're listening.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

...

I know you're not listening.

Really, a lot of the dischord in anarchist-statist dialogue comes back to this point. A big chunk of the rest appears at base to derive from the (counter-historical/counter-factual) statist faith that the miscreant, rather than the cooperative, is the defining feature of persons.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What I am not hearing is an agenda, a plan. I am hearing whines and cries. As best I understand it, this may be because incremental reform might fix things such that a total anarchist revolution would become unnecessary or inappropriate. As best I understand it, the solution is to whine, cry and do nothing until all the problems suddenly spontaneously fix themselves.

Color me dubious.

I, for one, am all for taking a hard look at the "state-granted privileges" that Matt listed and, most likely, getting rid of quite a few of them.

Let's sing kumbaya where we can.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Oh Matt, here we go again. Why is it that when people disagree with the anarcho-libertarians we seem to get a version of

a- you are not listening to me
b- you did not read what I wrote
c- you do not understand my wisdom and brilliance
d -you just don't get it

Actually, answers a and b (c and d you must have just come across in your imagination) are things that not all people here get. There are several statists (I forget what Kiff likes to be called instead -- apologies for any insult) here who pretty much never get those responses.

And so, one not among their number might ask himself, "if people are repeatedly telling just me that I am not paying attention, maybe they're not all crazy?"

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Really, a lot of the dischord in anarchist-statist dialogue comes back to this point. A big chunk of the rest appears at base to derive from the (counter-historical/counter-factual) statist faith that the miscreant, rather than the cooperative, is the defining feature of persons.

I think both are defining features.

While anarchists appear to be big on anti-state coercion, they do not appear to me to be very good at addressing just plain old rip-off artists and those folks (however many there are) who get off on taking advantage of other people.

P.S. -- in the context of this discussion, I consider myself a small-d democrat.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

While anarchists appear to be big on anti-state coercion, they do not appear to me to be very good at addressing just plain old rip-off artists and those folks (however many there are) who get off on taking advantage of other people.

I think what you'll find is that anarchists will make the counter-challenge that no state system can (or will be inclined to, given their nature as Kurt discussed earlier) make any kind of significant dent in addressing those kind of things, either. The state systems talk good game, but when one looks at results, even in Singapore, things get vandalized; even in America, cons and scams abound; even in England, people get robbed; even in Japan, people get murdered. So how, exactly, does the state system automatically get the claim to being better on those counts?

It seems what you're describing as a weakness of a stateless society turns out to be a [generally minor] feature of any society. And of course, any society will come up with ways (or, in the case of a statist society, One True Way) of dealing with it.

in the context of this discussion, I consider myself a small-d democrat

okey-doke. I'll try to remember that.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I, for one, am all for taking a hard look at the "state-granted privileges" that Matt listed and, most likely, getting rid of quite a few of them.

Let's sing kumbaya where we can.

Hey. If he'd come up with an agenda on what he'd like to change based on his list, I might support a good deal of his agenda. But, no, he daydreams of a non-coercing utopia with no clear path to get there.

There is no doubt there are bad laws where the state acts too much in favor of the elite. It has always been so. Most crises, a few abusive elements of government are cleaned up. Sure, Identify some of the worst problems of the here and now and let's fix em.

However, an awful lot of people believe that there are core coercive laws that are necessary. I'm among them. Governments are instituted among men to secure certain unalienable rights. I'm not willing to let go of government until I'm confident that my unalienable rights will be secured afterwards. I can't go all in all or nothing no coercion based purely on faith in human nature, and I believe this is true of an awful lot of people at this time. So long as this remains true, the pure theory idealistic flavors of anarchism aren't really in play.

Justin - of course you did not like my response since you are one of the biggest violators of that very idea. Seeing you take exception to the idea that you have been heard, you have been understood and you have been utterly and completely consigned to the trashheap of useless ideas is probably not very comforting to you.

So it is easier on your ego to pretend that you are simply a font of knowledge and wisdom and those who do not worship before your altar, or at least doff their cap as they pass by, are clueless and ignorant.

Whatever gets you through the night Justin. You have to live as a hopeless outsider in a system you seem to loathe so it is only normal you have developed these defense mechanisms and rationalizations for simply being rejected lock, stock and barrel.

from Justin

The state systems talk good game, but when one looks at results, even in Singapore, things get vandalized; even in America, cons and scams abound; even in England, people get robbed; even in Japan, people get murdered.

So the standard is perfection? Unless government makes us Eden upon the earth then government is useless?

Newsflash to Justin: this is planet earth inhabited by flawed human beings. Perfection does not exist with human behavior. If that is your standard, it is a ridiculous and phony one.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

So the standard is perfection?

That's not me saying that. It's the standard by which you statists make the claim that anarchism is bad. I merely turn your own standard against you.

Unless government makes us Eden upon the earth then government is useless?

No (and no one has argued otherwise, afaik), but unless it necessarily makes things better than they would be otherwise, it's not reasonable to declare it the better-than-otherwise choice.

Hi HM, I noticed you accused me of hyperbole then scurried away from the rebuttal.

Now that you're back, can you clarify your feelings on the brutality of empire? Do you only conscientiously object when your its your own butt on the line or the wrong party in power?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hey. If he'd come up with an agenda on what he'd like to change based on his list...

You Boomers with your agendas

It's like you have this deep-seated need for something you can shove down throats. I'd say the anarchist position on agendas has been pretty thoroughly expressed here -- too bad it doesn't look like it will meet that one of your needs.

(then again, since you prophet-gen folks are a dying breed, we'll just have to try to make sure the next batch get raised better.)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A big chunk of (the dischord in anarchist-statist dialogue) appears at base to derive from the (counter-historical/counter-factual) statist faith that the miscreant, rather than the cooperative, is the defining feature of persons.

I believe a lot of folks on all sides of this discussion have very different ideas on what defines people. Such perceptions are often values driven. Perspectives will not change easily.

In brief, I personally see people as social. They form groups that among other things select leaders, follow rules and defend territories. Small groups with well shared common values will have few miscreants. There will be little need for coercion. As societies become more complex with different ethnic backgrounds, economic classes, and roles in the economy, the unity of the group and inclination to follow the group's rules weakens or breaks down. There is a greater need for coercion to maintain the society's rules.

If one looks at Wiki's list of anarchist communities, one might find some examples of small uniform communities with tightly shared values that are naturally law abiding without a lot of coercion. I don't know that any statistics have been gathered to compare crime statistics, for example, between very early anarchist settlements in Rhode Island and modern inner cities. I expect early Rhode Island would come out way ahead.

In most eras and locations, there will be far more cooperative individuals than miscreants. Not all societies will have the same mix.

I wouldn't mind some serious crime statistics comparisons. Thing is, most of us live in fairly complex mixed societies. Miscreants do exist in such real world societies. Perhaps fewer miscreants would exist if everyone shared the same values, the same ethnic identity, the same social status, the same economic status, the same political beliefs, etc...

But it isn't a trivial exercise to homogenize a culture. Even if it were possible, I don't know how much study has been done to plot social homogenization against miscreant density.

I do know that in the real world there are miscreants, and a need to subdue their activities. If there is a way to create a utopian community where there are no miscreants and thus no need to coerce, I'd like some clue how such a community might be brought about.

Originally Posted by independent

Hi HM, I noticed you accused me of hyperbole then scurried away from the rebuttal.

Now that you're back, can you clarify your feelings on the brutality of empire? Do you only conscientiously object when your its your own butt on the line or the wrong party in power?

Independent ... Could you please refer me to the thread and post in question so I can read it, refresh my memory and respond?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's not me saying that. It's the standard by which you statists make the claim that anarchism is bad. I merely turn your own standard against you.

Can you please show me where I or others said the standard for anarchism is perfection????? I do not think it ever happened.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Oh Matt, here we go again. Why is it that when people disagree with the anarcho-libertarians we seem to get a version of

It has nothing to do with ideology. I was complaining about the repeated misunderstandings, strawmen, and failure to make a good attempt to grasp the position. It's quite true that this is rather peculiar to libertarian ideology, but I'm not interested in speculating on why this is the case.

For the umpteenth time, you have been heard, your words have been read, your points have been thought about and considered, the arguments you have raised have been weighed against other information, and after all that.... they have been rejected.

[Nothing personal Matt.

I don't mind people rejecting a position per se. My problem arose when Bob accused me (and Justin) of failing to make connections between "pretty abstract theories" and the real world, when I have done so on multiple occasions; however, real 'nuts and bolts' work just wasn't relevant to my last couple of replies. For what it's worth, I agree with 95% of what Kurt is saying, and considering this isn't a propaganda thread, there isn't much need to repeat it.

As for you h.m., you gotta admit that you have a polemical style.

from Matt

As for you h.m., you gotta admit that you have a polemical style.

I feel like I should be one of the Jets from WEST SIDE STORY leaping down the street proclaiming "I got style... I got style!!!!".

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm viewing your approach to anarchism in a very similar light. You identify some valid problems with society as currently exists. If you were willing to propose fixes, we might have a conversation. It is one thing to say what is wrong, it is something else to lay out a practical path to something better.

The practical path to something better is what I'm not hearing.

Here's why I'm frustrated: a multitude of practical paths for a better future filters but two highly problematic possibilities in the American political system (appeal to moderates and whatnot). This happens over and over, and people of my ideological ilk lack the political power to make integrating ourselves within this system a worthwhile endeavor. So I must resign myself to proposing paths that would be actionable if only the structure permitted radical ideas to gain traction. But it doesn't, so I'm stuck with espousing propositions that you find to be unsatisfying precisely because support is low. (And you must think this way, because my basic propositions are entailed by my philosophical/political commitments -- of which I believe you are aware.)

I am in favor of cutting taxes across the board (poorest brackets are more important though), reducing American intervention in foreign countries, removing State privilege (land, money, IP, you name it) that props up big corporations, banks, the health industry, etc. thereby increasing the bargaining power of labor and subjecting big business to much-needed competition, removing federal licensing for professionals, removing marriage privilege, fully legalizing abortion, ending gun control, ending the death penalty, no torture, full drug legalization, tougher standards for cops, and smashing the state immediately. Edit: Since only a few of these are really on the table, and libertarians are only going to get what they want via State action by whispering in independently-inclined liberals' ears, I'm more concerned with developing systems to get what I want outside of the State.

(Note: I am not in favor of cutting welfare without getting rid of a few other things first.)

It would seem that anarchists see clearly the bad laws while the statists see the good. I would propose that both good and bad exists in the current structure. I would maintain the good while altering or removing the bad. I might properly be called a progressive. I would like to see progress.

You might want to check up on the history of "progressivism."

What I am not hearing is an agenda, a plan. I am hearing whines and cries. As best I understand it, this may be because incremental reform might fix things such that a total anarchist revolution would become unnecessary or inappropriate. As best I understand it, the solution is to whine, cry and do nothing until all the problems suddenly spontaneously fix themselves.

Any improvement is worthwhile. It's difficult to predict when that total anarchist revolution will happen. Until then, I'd like weed to be legal.