Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocomm

[Francois Tremblay]

The Zapatistas, for example, could be accused of aggression for taking land from rich property owners. However, one could also look at it as an act of retaliation, taking back what was stolen from them. It certain situations, it's hard to apply the non-aggression principle, because it isn't always black and white.

But under CAP, it is very, very clear who's in the right in that situation.

[Howard509]

The Zapatistas, for example, could be accused of aggression for taking land from rich property owners. However, one could also look at it as an act of retaliation, taking back what was stolen from them. It certain situations, it's hard to apply the non-aggression principle, because it isn't always black and white.

But under CAP, it is very, very clear who's in the right in that situation.

I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the acronym. I do, however, sympathize with the Zapatistas.

[jack]

The NAP isnt a solid principle for other reasons, but this is a non sequitur.

Being against aggression implies self defence.

My point is that there being fights at all, no matter who is the aggressor, means that the NAP is crap because there is still an initiation of violence by the majority of humanity, who don't abide by the "principle".

[Francois Tremblay]

CAP means Chosen Aggression Principle, and is my replacement to the NAP. (not that a replacement is needed)

[Noleaders]

My point is that there being fights at all, no matter who is the aggressor, means that the NAP is crap because there is still an initiation of violence by the majority of humanity, who don't abide by the "principle".

Im not sure i understand what your saying here but you seem to be arguing that principles dont matter if they arent backed up by anything real. However this is misunderstanding the point of ethics, no one has ever claimed otherwise, the point is what is backed up by real stuff should be guided by the NAP. The existence of a lot of violations of it means nothing to the NAP other than all these people should be punished.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yea, jack seems to be confusing descriptive statements (this is what is) with prescriptive principles (this is what should be). NAP and CAP are not descriptive statements, they are prescriptive principles.

In the same way, "might makes right" may make a good descriptive statement for the current States, but is an absolutely insane prescriptive principle.

[jack]

Yea, jack seems to be confusing descriptive statements (this is what is) with prescriptive principles (this is what should be). NAP and CAP are not descriptive statements, they are prescriptive principles.

In the same way, "might makes right" may make a good descriptive statement for the current States, but is an absolutely insane prescriptive principle.

Alright, I just always hear it advocated that the NAP will keep society together, or is moral/ethical or something like that, so I assume its proponants claim it exists.

[Howard509]

Yea, jack seems to be confusing descriptive statements (this is what is) with prescriptive principles (this is what should be). NAP and CAP are not descriptive statements, they are prescriptive principles.

In the same way, "might makes right" may make a good descriptive statement for the current States, but is an absolutely insane prescriptive principle.

Alright, I just always hear it advocated that the NAP will keep society together, or is moral/ethical or something like that, so I assume its proponants claim it exists.

I believe that, through proper education, that the NAP could keep society together in the absence of government. It's not certain.

[Guest]

"Free Enterprise" is often considered to be a dirty phrase, synonymous with "capitalism". Most thinking people realize that it was largely communist-influenced types who fought to overthrow the royal caste systems of France and Russia, and to free people in Asia and Africa from colonial European powers while the US sided with the colonial powers and dictatorships, not only in Asia and Africa, but in Central and South America, and in the Mid East. The CIA and British MI6 overthrew the democratically-elected Mohammed Mossedegh in 1953 and installed the Chucky Puppet Shah with Operation Ajax, and today the US enables the brutal dictator Hosni Mubarek of Egypt, who has stated for years that he will hold elections, with over a billion dollars of aid a year, and also supports the royal caste systems of Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive cars, among other things; Jordan; Kuwait; and Morroco, where the CIA renders prisoners for torture.

Anarchists should not argue about whether "communists" or "capitalists" have been more evil in the past. It seems that all political argument should boil down to the question of whether it is logically ethical to coerce an individual; that is, for example, how would I as an individual acquire a right to prevent you from smoking marihuana? And if I do not possess this right, how can I delegate it to a town councilperson or a congressperson? Both this logic, and the age-old Golden Rule or reciprocity provide a mandate for individual sovereignty/anarchy.

[Guest]

"Free Enterprise" is often considered to be a dirty phrase, synonymous with "capitalism". Most thinking people realize that it was largely communist-influenced types who fought to overthrow the royal caste systems of France and Russia, and to free people in Asia and Africa from colonial European powers while the US sided with the colonial powers and dictatorships, not only in Asia and Africa, but in Central and South America, and in the Mid East. The CIA and British MI6 overthrew the democratically-elected Mohammed Mossedegh in 1953 and installed the Chucky Puppet Shah with Operation Ajax, and today the US enables the brutal dictator Hosni Mubarek of Egypt, who has stated for years that he will hold elections, with over a billion dollars of aid a year, and also supports the royal caste systems of Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive cars, among other things; Jordan; Kuwait; and Morroco, where the CIA renders prisoners for torture.

Anarchists should not argue about whether "communists" or "capitalists" have been more evil in the past. It seems that all political argument should boil down to the question of whether it is logically ethical to coerce an individual; that is, for example, how would I as an individual acquire a right to prevent you from smoking marihuana? And if I do not possess this right, how can I delegate it to a town councilperson or a congressperson? Both this logic, and the age-old Golden Rule or reciprocity provide a mandate for individual sovereignty/anarchy.

[Tom Palven]

The Golden Rule should not be dismissed as a Christian religious principle. As mentioned elsewhere, some decades before Christ's Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Hillel espoused a negative version, "Do not unto others that which is hateful to you", which is very similar to the Non-Agression Principle. Centuries before that, Confucius is alleged have said that reciprocity (Shu) defines ethics in one word. Reciprocity is, effectively, the same as The Golden Rule, but without the possible religious implications of The Golden Rule, which Christians may believe came as a commandment from God. The GR of reciprocity is very similar to the non-aggression principle.

Neither the Golden Rule nor the NAP should be considered to be completely pacifist, as they do not eschew self-defense. Both the NAP and The Golden Rule seem to be completely compatible with individual sovereignty/self ownership.

During the ages of the Divine Right of Kings and Popes, only the royal castes were free. After the communists freed the serfs, blacks marched for equality, and women fought to achieve voting rights, most people enjoyed a certain amount of freedom, with exception of those women under the control of fundamentalist Judeo-Christi-Islamic sects in the Mid-East and elsewhere. It is now time for people to enjoy complete individual sovereignty and to be free, not only from the dictates of kings and popes, but from the likes of George Bush, or anyone else who wants to, as Proudhon said, "govern" us.

[variagil]

As Feyerabend writes, there is an abundance reduced by the statements of presocratics about the Being. This rules are the knowledge know as gnoseologic, that are short sentences wrote over stones in the greek temples before the parmenidean poems and senteces, as explains F. Nietzsche in his course of "Presocratic Filosophers". Is this knowledge as "Know yourself" useful? I think no. The dialectic requires sometimes short senteces as "Yes" or "Not" but mostly you must argue to defend your positions and try to get the useful information of your interviewed.

Feyerabend exposes and defines what he says "Epistemologic anarchism" that is an anarchism applied to the democratic decissions in the filosophie of the science. So you must convince of the true intereset of your research to get the money needed for it, and people should decide if they want to spent their money in the expensive filatellia of physics of high energies or in the more expensive experiments in microgravity.

[variagil]

The power and the anarchism.

The statism appears even in the most leftish organisations of the anarchism, leaving by the side the obsession of communism for the power as defined by Foucault. From my point of view that is undoubtelly libertarian, the power given in an historical context can allow some discourses to reach the object desired, like an approach to the Wellfare state, stop wars or decreasse his ever disastrous effects or at least try to do this in the dialectic materialism and historical materialism mechanics. But the approaches to the power fall down the anarchism? In a punk sentence can be argued "No labels, please", there have been anarchists ministers -the first woman to be minister in Europe was an spanish anarchist of the CNT- and there have been nowadays meetings to decide the property of the historical buildings, due to positive approaches with the current governement. This are decissions of the union. I think one union to be considered anarchist, between other requirements should have no subventions from the state or companies and that the anarchism is a question of the unions more than avantgarde organisations that likes to represent the anarchism. So as an anarchist sentence says "I am me and my circumstances".