From a maturing right-libertarian

[Guest]

Hello all, I'm someone who has been associated with right -libertarianism (ala Ron Paul) and anarcho-capitalism in the past. But over the years I began to realize that I couldn't stand most of the people associated with those philosophies. I found that they're typically dogmatic, often socially conservative, condemnatory towards any other views, and the entire belief system hinges on the doctrine of natural property rights, which I found to be questionable. So for a while I thought I was without a home, but since discovering and reading a bit of the whole left-anarchist paradigm, I become more and more attracted.

One issue I still am having is that some left-anarchists somehow seemed to not be "that" opposed to the state, if you know what I mean. I can't say that resonates with me at this point. For example, Noam Chomsky calling for a nationalized healthcare system. Now of course I don't want to be a "vulgar" libertarian, but my anti-authoritarian alarms still ring at that. I just can't say I have any faith in recruiting the help of the state, increasing it's power in any sense, as a step towards anarchism. Am I wrong in this?

[Guest]

chumpsky gives some lip service to anarchism, but he's just another establishment shill, exposing just enough truth so that his sucker followers will tow the line when it comes time to feed them a big lie.

imho, left and right have a misconception about what constitutes 'the state.' in today's world, the corporations are most definitely part of the state and are not at all "private." that's because the state itself is merely an owned corporation - owned as in owned by sets of private individuals. until leftists and rightists will admit this, we can't move forward together.

the leftist-identified person sympathizes with socialist health care - despite the fact that it's actually bad for people; increases the power of the state; manages people like cattle/slaves and of course was written by the insurance companies. meanwhile the right-identified person advocates for a "private" health care system owned by corporations (i.e. the state) even though it fails to cover people adequately; creates a perverse drugs-for-profit scheme which entices the state to drug it's own population; and generally creates misery in the society.

time to dump left and right, eh? no wonder anarchism has been systematically hunted down and killed. if clowns like chumpsky or fucking liars like amy goodman or filthy shills like medea benjamin are what people think of when it comes to anarchism, we're already dead.

[Kiviuq]

As I see it, anarchists sympathise with state welfare schemes only because they believe it is better than the alternative under capitalism, but it doesn't mean that they support the state ideologically. They definitely want to see the end of the state, but until that happens there are real people with real needs going unmet, and under capitalism only the state can ensure free and universal public services.

[Guest]

Ideally, I'd prefer to see public and merit goods provided by the community, not by the State. Indeed, the State provision of health care, education, defence, etc.. is both a reflection of the fact that the sense of community has been undermined by the profit motive and competition ('capitalism'), and a cause of that undermining (as reliance on the State is often a substitute for developing the sense of community).

An example to demonstrate what I mean: Often economics textbooks will claim that the State is necessary for providing public goods - such as lighthouses (because they are characterized by non-rivalry, and non-exclusivity). In a footnote of one of the older textbooks I read when I was in school, the author mentioned that in England, lighthouses were traditionally not built and managed by the government, but by coalitions of shipowners.

It's telling that such information is relegated to obscure footnotes, while generation after generation of students are brainwashed into believing that public goods must be provided by the State.

[AndyMalroes]

As I see it, anarchists sympathise with state welfare schemes only because they believe it is better than the alternative under capitalism, but it doesn't mean that they support the state ideologically. They definitely want to see the end of the state, but until that happens there are real people with real needs going unmet, and under capitalism only the state can ensure free and universal public services.

Totally agree, another reason I still vote. I'll settle for a lesser evil anyday when the good is so far off in the horizon.

[ian6]

As I see it, anarchists sympathise with state welfare schemes only because they believe it is better than the alternative under capitalism, but it doesn't mean that they support the state ideologically. They definitely want to see the end of the state, but until that happens there are real people with real needs going unmet, and under capitalism only the state can ensure free and universal public services.

Totally agree, another reason I still vote. I'll settle for a lesser evil anyday when the good is so far off in the horizon.

2 things:

1. Welfare lords (big political lords, not the local offices) have an incentive to create more poor, so that more welfare is needed, so he gets paid more, and then creates more poverty in cycle

2. A better way is to create alternatives, form friendly societies, coops and free stuff depots (gift economy stores)

[AnarchistEpoch]

I found that they're typically dogmatic, often socially conservative

Most Libertarians(right or left - even though in my opinion those are both silly) and anarcho-capitalists are not really socially-conservative, or dogmatic from what I've seen. You sure you weren't just dreaming? or maybe high? Anyways, you go on to say
"But over the years I began to realize that I couldn't stand most of the people associated with those philosophies."
but then you say "condemnatory towards any other views" So you can't stand their supposed views, but then you complain that they condemn other views? Seems like it's not only their side that's condemnatory to other views...

In my opinion left and right are just silly prefixes to separate ideologies(and people) even further. I propose we drop the "right/left" bullbusiness and just stick with "Anarchism" or "Libertarianism" etc. etc.

As for Noam Clumsky, here's a link with many examples of his idiocy: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

Enjoy!

[AndyMalroes]

No. The left/right paradigm is a very real and necessary division in distinguishing between beliefs. If I can't accurately describe a set of beliefs I generally hold by pointing to a school of anarchist thought and instead, have to distinguish the difference in my thoughts and "Anarchism" (which your saying could include Anti-state capitalists) every time I argue with someone it would get ridiculously convoluted for no other reason than satisfying a compromise only wanted by ancaps.

[AnarchistEpoch]

No. The left/right paradigm is a very real and necessary division in distinguishing between beliefs.

It is real but it is stupid. There's many other ways of distinguishing beliefs than simply "left/right". Beliefs don't just fit into two categories, they over-lap with many people(when it comes to the left/right paradigm at least). Generally all Anarchists("left" or "right" if you will) believe in the same things(unless it's anarcho-communism, capitalism, syndicalism etc. - that's where the real differences lie in my opinion).

Also, "Anarchism" (which your saying could include Anti-state capitalists)"

I said something completely different but yes, they are still Anarchists. Just like Anarcho-Communists(anti-state communists) etc.

[AndyMalroes]

No anti-sate capitalists are not anarchists. They are anti-state capitalists. Anarchism is the belief that all coercive hierarchies are illegitimate. Being anti-state is not being an anarchist. Anarchism is only of the left, there is no right wing branch of anarchism.

[AnarchistEpoch]

Nope, they're still Anarchists but with a capitalist "flavor" added.

Anarchism is only of the left, there is no right wing branch of anarchism.

It all depends on how one views it but I don't think so. You're just taking ONE view and saying that it is the only form of Anarchism and that there are no others. Basically you're just saying "What *I* believe is real Anarchism; what *they* believe isn't" That's pretty narrow-minded and divisive. I don't consider Anarchism left or right, I think it is silly to do so. From what I see, all Anarchists generally agree on most core principles.

[AndyMalroes]

I never said there weren't others, I'll happily agree that anarcho-mutualism, -syndicalism, -collectivism and -communism are all valid schools of anarchist thought, but capitalism cannot be married together with anarchism as it is in direct contradiction with everything an anarchist believes. No matter how much you want it to be, the core tenet of anarchism is not anti-statism. It is, as I said before, the rejection of all coercive hierarchies. Capitalism maintains a system of coercive hierarchies.