Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocomm

[Howard509]

Christian anarchists, as far as I've seen, are in as much agreement with the non-aggression principle as individualist anarchists.

Actually, that's what I said... [/quote]

Then I'm glad we're agreed.

[Francois Tremblay]

Would the labor theory of value be a necessary basis for a stateless society?

A stateless society? No. But who cares about being anti-state and nothing else?

Is it the necessary basis for a FREE society? Yes.

[Howard509]

Is it the necessary basis for a FREE society? Yes.

On this point, I'd have to agree. Yet I see the arguments of anarcho-capitalists on this as well and find them consistent.

[Francois Tremblay]

There are no arguments from the ancaps that are consistent. Every single argument I've seen against LTV is circular.

[jack]

These two principles, NAP and self-ownership, are unadulterated bullshit.

You certainly have a right to this opinion. If you wish to influence mine, please substantiate it. This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum reject the non-aggression principle, though I could be mistaken.

We ALL reject the NAP, idiot.

Have you ever been in a fight?

[Francois Tremblay]

I reject the NAP because it is based on property rights, and because it is self-refuting based on our daily experience. Both points are related. If you shine a flashlight or a laser pointer on my house, you're aggressing on my "property." Flying a plane over your house is an aggression because it carries with it risks of killing you. So does driving on your street. And so on and so forth.

In my book, I proposed a concept called the CAP (Chosen Aggression Principle), to counter the NAP. I think only the CAP is compatible with Anarchist freedom.

[thelastindividual]

The non-aggression principle and self-ownership, so fundamental to 19th century American anarchism, are the reasons I'm an anarchist.

I never got the concept of self-ownership. Seems like nonsense on stilts to me. You can't own yourself you are yourself

[Francois Tremblay]

If self-ownership is the basis of Anarchism, then Anarchism must be a lie, since self-ownership is a profoundly incoherent concept.

Fortunately, self-ownership is not the basis of Anarchism.

[shawnpwilbur]

The non-aggression principle and self-ownership, so fundamental to 19th century American anarchism, are the reasons I'm an anarchist.

I never got the concept of self-ownership. Seems like nonsense on stilts to me. You can't own yourself you are yourself

Well, self-ownership needn't be incoherent, because not only are there instances where "I am myself" and "I own myself" are equivalent, but they may be pretty important instances. But most of the arguments we see for self-ownership as the basis of property are incoherent, because they are circular.

Most of the an-cap approaches treat that "I am" as a special case of "I own," rather than the other way around, even though something like lockean labor-mixing treats homesteaded property as a special-case extension of the "I am."

Of course, if you get the terms right-way-round, the theory doesn't take you the places capitalists want to go.

We can make a case this is pretty close to axiomatic: I am. I ex-ist. So I have some real (if not necessarily determinable, or at least easily determinable) extent, which is "my own." My physical extension into the world, and various sorts of extension through action, form a sphere which is proper (though perhaps not exclusively proper) to me. And that sphere is changeable.

We could build any number of positive theories of property, starting from there, but what the an-cap theories generally do is pick out some set of rights conventionally or legally associated with the alienable articles we bring into our personal sphere, and then attempt to apply those rights to "the self," as if it was a chattel of some sort. Things take center stage away from the human actors, and circularity and/or category errors ensue.

[Howard509]

These two principles, NAP and self-ownership, are unadulterated bullshit.

You certainly have a right to this opinion. If you wish to influence mine, please substantiate it. This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum reject the non-aggression principle, though I could be mistaken.

We ALL reject the NAP, idiot.

Have you ever been in a fight?

Dude. The non-aggression principle, by definition, is against aggression, not self-defense.

[Noleaders]

These two principles, NAP and self-ownership, are unadulterated bullshit.

You certainly have a right to this opinion. If you wish to influence mine, please substantiate it. This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum reject the non-aggression principle, though I could be mistaken.

We ALL reject the NAP, idiot.

Have you ever been in a fight?

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

Being against aggression implies self defence.

[Zazaban]

You certainly have a right to this opinion. If you wish to influence mine, please substantiate it. This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum reject the non-aggression principle, though I could be mistaken.

We ALL reject the NAP, idiot.

Have you ever been in a fight?

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

Being against aggression implies self defence.

I think this reasoning may come from jack's belief that anarchism is not anti-coercion.

[Noor]

Dude. The non-aggression principle, by definition, is against aggression, not self-defense.

Correct.

I don't think of the NAP as an axiom for all situations, even though I generally am against initiation of coercion and violence. It's far more complicated than a simple "voluntary = just, coercive = unjust" mindset.

[Noleaders]

Dude. The non-aggression principle, by definition, is against aggression, not self-defense.

Correct.

I don't think of the NAP as an axiom for all situations, even though I generally am against initiation of coercion and violence. It's far more complicated than a simple "voluntary = just, coercive = unjust" mindset.

Yes, though try telling that to some of its advocates...

I think the NAP works when adopted into a broader system that takes into account stuff like context and forms of oppression that dont technically violate the NAP like racism.

[Howard509]

I don't think of the NAP as an axiom for all situations, even though I generally am against initiation of coercion and violence. It's far more complicated than a simple "voluntary = just, coercive = unjust" mindset.

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.