An article worth reading

[Noleaders]

http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2007/ ... archo.html

Both the origional by Roderick Long and this guys comments make some very good points.

There's been some discussion about infighting recently and this is very relevant to these discussions as its on about the biggest faction divide of all.

[thelastindividual]

So his point is we should openly engage in debate with ancaps

Oh prometheus where art thou.....

[Zazaban]

Good article.

[Francois Tremblay]

Actually, nowadays I find that I like all the people in group 1 that I know of, and I've gone on to repudiate or distance myself from all those in group 2 that I know of, except Konkin (agorism).

In fact, I feel that his classification, which he says is not fair, is perfectly fair. Down with capitalism! Down with classism!

[Noleaders]

Actually, nowadays I find that I like all the people in group 1 that I know of, and I've gone on to repudiate or distance myself from all those in group 2 that I know of, except Konkin (agorism).

In fact, I feel that his classification, which he says is not fair, is perfectly fair. Down with capitalism! Down with classism!

I agree, tho often its a confusion over semantics which i think is what the article was saying.

I guess it comes down to whether there a capitalist or a kapitalist.

[|Y|]

OK, so an ancap says there's no real difference between mostly anti-capitalists and laissez-faire capitalists, and another guy goes on to say that the divide between these two obviously diametrically opposed positions is "invented" by "social anarchists" who "wouldn't even know anything about either to begin with."

Does anyone see the inherent idiocy of this argument?

Um, yes, there is a fucking difference between anti-capitalists and capitalists, OK? This isn't an "invention by reds." This isn't some sort of crazy conspiracy to "exclude perfectly valid anarcho-capitalists."

The theory started with property relationships and it ends there. Period. The divide is clear, concise, objective, irrevocible.

But then the author goes on to say the *exact opposite*. That we shouldn't include capitalists in our tent, and gets abstract with who we should exclude. What the author fails to recognize is that capitalism is currently the dominate cutural and authoritarian paradigm. There is no "inquisition" against anarcho-capitalists. They started it, they want a society that does not look much different from what we have (where rulership, and authoritarianism, is paramount above all else).

And, before I get flamed, I respect rechelon very much and we have had good discussions in the past, I just never saw this article before and I find it asinine and largely incoherent.

Rodderick Long makes no valid points whatsoever.

[|Y|]

The only real reason from my point of view to "stop being dicks to ancaps" is that it is a completely and utterly pointless waste of time. They are a marginal and irrelevant group. Why even attempt to discuss anything with them?

[|Y|]

LOL @ Rodderick Long's recent money snafu (not paying old credit card bills) and ROFL @ the outpouring of charity. Delicious.

[Noleaders]

OK, so an ancap says there's no real difference between mostly anti-capitalists and laissez-faire capitalists, and another guy goes on to say that the divide between these two obviously diametrically opposed positions is "invented" by "social anarchists" who "wouldn't even know anything about either to begin with."

Does anyone see the inherent idiocy of this argument?

An ancap whose rejected the word capitalism and believes most firms will "smaller, flatter and more crowded" and is on great terms with many individualist anarchists?

Um, yes, there is a fucking difference between anti-capitalists and capitalists, OK? This isn't an "invention by reds." This isn't some sort of crazy conspiracy to "exclude perfectly valid anarcho-capitalists."

Of course there is, i think the point was the criteria is often made on shaky grounds and semantics.

The theory started with property relationships and it ends there. Period. The divide is clear, concise, objective, irrevocible.

You mean like:

Is it their stand on land ownership and rent? By that standard Spencer, in rejecting land ownership entirely, is more “socialistic” than Tucker and so belongs in Group 1, while Spooner, in endorsing absentee landlordism, is more “capitalistic” than Tucker and so belongs in Group 2.

But then the author goes on to say the *exact opposite*. That we shouldn't include capitalists in our tent, and gets abstract with who we should exclude. What the author fails to recognize is that capitalism is currently the dominate cutural and authoritarian paradigm. There is no "inquisition" against anarcho-capitalists. They started it, they want a society that does not look much different from what we have (where rulership, and authoritarianism, is paramount above all else).

Yes, that was a separate author though discussing what is (and he's very, very correct on this) wrong with the anarcho-capitalist movement.

[|Y|]

Spooner accepted rent?

Spencer started Social Darwinism. Anarchist my ass.

[Noleaders]

Spooner accepted rent?

Yeah, he was a lockean i believe. He also favoured IP.

Spencer started Social Darwinism. Anarchist my ass.

He belongs to the second list tho

[|Y|]

Of course he's on the second list.

And Spooner accepted rent. Cite please.

[|Y|]

Note that I'm not necessarily "defending" that list, there may be inconsistancies. But the ones you listed are poor examples of the list being arbitrary.

[Noleaders]

I didnt list them tho...
And im not saying ancaps are good, its just an interesting article i stumbled across that was kinda relevant to recent debates and i reckoned it deserved its own thread.

anyway i think spooner's pro-private property is found in here
http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html
Atleast it mentions property quite regularly but never makes the distinction between possession and property.

[|Y|]

Read your link.