Rights For Minors

[Bizud]

Most people who have called themselves anarchists have been socialists. North American variants aside, anarchism has always been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement.

[garsk]

question: if we get ride of this "adult and child" thing, does this mean we can charge a 7 year old for murder and send him to maximum security prison? and does this mean that a 45 year old male can have sex with a 12 year girl legally? just asking.

[supercanuk]

Most people who have called themselves anarchists have been socialists. North American variants aside, anarchism has always been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement.

Pretty true, especially anarcho-syndaclists, but it has wide appeal and use in Argentina and Bolivia, also in Spain during the Spanish civil war, and the kabutsnik (i know im not spelling that right) in Israel.

 

There are a million different types of "anarchists". I find that most of them are either confused libertarians or confused socialists. You could call me an "anarcho-capitalist". that's the only reasonable form of anarchism. Pure anarchism is fundamentally flawed - like every other ideology except one - and it's completely impractical

 

lol there are several types of anarchism this is true, but i'd hardly call them confused libertarians, in fact they write volumes of how to construct a fair society, it's quite well thought out if you read about it (Rudolf Rocker for example).

 

see, anarcho-capitalists are also viewed very often as fascists because they support a viewpoint of the world which says that unfettered capitalism is fine and dandy and that corporate structure which is ultimately hierarchical and is "top down" rather than "bottom up" like democracy. The reason anarchists call themselves anarchists is because they believe in a very extreme form of democracy where everyone can vote on all aspects of life, not just the superficial, and the economy is in control of the majority of voters, not out of reach like in our current system.

 

Try asking the government to vote on the SPP, or NAFTA, in fact, Canadians voted overwhelmingly for candidates who did not support NAFTA (look at Brian Mulroney's about-face) yet what did he do? Despite winning on a platform that did not support NAFTA he brought it in! To many, the inability to control one's own economy is not democracy at all. We ought to rethink our society is structured and ask whether or not freedom includes freedom of self-determination.

 

p.s. capitalism has TONS of flaws, so i'd really love to see the argument that capitalism is this perfect idealogy, where the planet can be raped of resources and the rich get very rich and the poor remain disadvantaged. What a great system!

[Some Random]

it always amazes me that you cats can write these huge socio-political essays on a message board. kudos, sirs. i don't have the attention span to do that. or read them.

[heyrabbit]

I don't want to life in a fair society. Fair for whom? There's no such thing as "society" because society is just all of us, it's just a group of individuals.

 

 

Capitalism is the only morally justifiable system of government. When I say "moral", I mean objective morality, not mystical. It's the only "right" system because it's the only system consonant with man's nature. I'll explain the axioms I've acknowledged, which lead me t this conclusion. they are in sequence. without one you cannot have the other

 

The formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of ALL knowledge.

 

The law of identity: A is A. Man is man. man's existence does not exist without man. To live or to not live. To be man or not to be man.

 

In order for man to be man, he must have the "Right to Life", he must have the ability to engage in self-sustaining, self-generating action. Man is rational being whose mind is the means of his survival. This is the root of all rights because if man does not have the freedom to think and to act, he is denied of his life.

 

the only implementation of the Right to Life is property rights. man must have the right to earn and keep the product of his effort.

 

The only system of government that accepts and promotes these moral precepts is laisser-faire capitalism, where the government's only purpose is subordinate its citizens to moral law.

 

 

So what is the fundamental premise behind anarchism? What code of ethics is it based on? I guess that depends on what kind of anarchism you support. if you support the idea that all men should have the right to vote on all issues, that's not the abolishment of government, it's the proliferation of government! that's a anti-statist position, but also a socialist-collectivist position. it's not anarchy

 

corporate structure is hierarchical, but that's exactly the way it should be. how else would it be?

 

I don't think the economy should have to be "controlled". There should be no economic rights becuase in a free society, you cannot have the "right" to someone's money for the same reason's that I don't have the "right" to your house, or the "right" to your wife. etc

[Lauren]

it always amazes me that you cats can write these huge socio-political essays on a message board. kudos, sirs. i don't have the attention span to do that. or read them.

i totally agree.

[supercanuk]

hehe totally understandable - when i get really tired i just don't participate in them because it does take a lot of energy and often goes nowhere. I guess it can be worth it if you completely forgo any ideas about changing anyones already dead set dogmatic position - I find that most people, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, rarely give a second look at what they assume to be true and right. That said i am just as guilty as anyone else but i like to think that i entertain opposing viewpoints.

Edited September 14, 2007 by supercanuk

[Bizud]

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but using "man" instead of "people" is sexist, as is implying wives as property.

 

So what is the fundamental premise behind anarchism? What code of ethics is it based on? I guess that depends on what kind of anarchism you support. if you support the idea that all men should have the right to vote on all issues, that's not the abolishment of government, it's the proliferation of government! that's a anti-statist position, but also a socialist-collectivist position. it's not anarchy

 

Most anarchists are collectivists as well as individualists. There's no contradiciton there. Furthermore, I don't think we should try too hard to put systems of rights or ethics into axioms. I don't need my ethics to be axiomatic. But if you do, most anarchists would generally believe:

 

1) One should neither submit to nor exercise power over another.

2) People should have a say in decision-making in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision.

 

In one sense, I agree about the product of one's work. Socialism, real socialism has always meant, first and foremost, that workers own and control their own work. In most modern workplaces that means democratic structures and unions. As a social anarchist I think the workplace (and also the school, and the family, and all other human institutions) should be democratized. Property rights are not absolute. If someone acquired, legally, all land on the earth's surface and wanted to charge exorbitant fees for its use, I don't think any of us would consider that legitimate. We would surely recognize that as tyrannical. Well, I think that hierarchies that give bosses power over workers are similarly tyrannical, degrading and dehumanizing. The workplace is a central feature of society and there's no reason it shouldn't be democratically organized. Same for families and schools.

 

edit: To restate, anarchists favour a society where all relationships between individuals are between equals, and where all associations are voluntary. Libertarians, to me, seem more like confused conservatives. They're very concerned about the state infringing their "liberty," but are not concerned about the way other human institutions and arrangements - the workplace, the family, the school, for example - limit individual freedom. Libertarians have no problem with these institutions or the people who run them behaving in coercive ways because they're doing it on their own property. Anarchists question all coercion.

 

The Libertarian As Conservative by Bob Black

 

Most work serves the predatory purposes of commerce and coercion and can be abolished outright. The rest can be automated away and/or transformed -- by the experts, the workers who do it -- into creative, playlike pastimes whose variety and conviviality will make extrinsic inducements like the capitalist carrot and the Communist stick equally obsolete. In the hopefully impending meta-industrial revolution, libertarian communists revolting against work will settle accounts with "libertarians" and "Communists" working against revolt. And then we can go for the gusto!

 

Even if you think everything I've said about work, such as the possibility of its abolition, is visionary nonsense, the anti-liberty implications of its prevalence would still hold good. The time of your life is the one commodity you can sell but never buy back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else's. If you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life. Incapable of living a life of liberty, you'll settle for one of its ideological representations, like libertarianism. You can't treat values like workers, hiring and firing them at will and assigning each a place in an imposed division of labor. The taste for freedom and pleasure can't be compartmentalized.

 

Libertarians complain that the state is parasitic, an excrescence on society. They think it's like a tumor you could cut out, leaving the patient just as he was, only healthier. They've been mystified by their own metaphors. Like the market, the state is an activity, not an entity. The only way to abolish the state is to change the way of life it forms a part of. That way of life, if you call that living, revolves around work and takes in bureaucracy, moralism, schooling, money, and more. Libertarians are conservatives because they avowedly want to maintain most of this mess and so unwittingly perpetuate the rest of the racket. But they're bad conservatives because they've forgotten the reality of institutional and ideological interconnection which was the original insight of the historical conservatives. Entirely out of touch with the real currents of contemporary resistance, they denounce practical opposition to the system as "nihilism," "Luddism," and other big words they don't understand. A glance at the world confirms that their utopian capitalism just can't compete with the state. With enemies like libertarians, the state doesn't need friends.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but using "man" instead of "people" is sexist, as is implying wives as property.

 

 

 

Most anarchists are collectivists as well as individualists.  There's no contradiciton there.  Furthermore, I don't think we should try too hard to put systems of rights or ethics into axioms.  I don't need my ethics to be axiomatic.  But if you do, most anarchists would generally believe:

 

1) One should neither submit to nor exercise power over another.

2) People should have a say in decision-making in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision.

 

In one sense, I agree about the product of one's work.  Socialism, real socialism has always meant, first and foremost, that workers own and control their own work.  In most modern workplaces that means democratic structures and unions.  As a social anarchist I think the workplace (and also the school, and the family, and all other human institutions) should be democratized.  Property rights are not absolute.  If someone acquired, legally, all land on the earth's surface and wanted to charge exorbitant fees for its use, I don't think any of us would consider that legitimate.  We would surely recognize that as tyrannical.  Well, I think that hierarchies that give bosses power over workers are similarly tyrannical, degrading and dehumanizing.  The workplace is a central feature of society and there's no reason it shouldn't be democratically organized.  Same for families and schools.

 

edit: To restate, anarchists favour a society where all relationships between individuals are between equals, and where all associations are voluntary.  Libertarians, to me, seem more like confused conservatives.  They're very concerned about the state infringing their "liberty," but are not concerned about the way other human institutions and arrangements - the workplace, the family, the school, for example - limit individual freedom.  Libertarians have no problem with these institutions or the people who run them behaving in coercive ways because they're doing it on their own property.  Anarchists question all coercion.

 

The Libertarian As Conservative by Bob Black

Nobody puts ethics or rights into axioms.Rights are derived from axioms, that's what makes it an axiom. You don't need your rights and ethics to be based on reality? That's exactly why I don't approve of anarchism. What is the ideology based on? what is it's premise? if it's not based on reason, then inductiveness lets us know it's source. I don't think you would say that you agree with anarchism because you "feel" it's right and good, but that it is the only alternative if you do not like axioms of knowledge.

 

"

1) One should neither submit to nor exercise power over another.

2) People should have a say in decision-making in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision.

 

1) it's impossible for nobody to submit to or exercise power. even if it were possible, who then deals with a criminal?

 

people have a say in decisions after they've been affected by them? they do this iwth an anarchist time machine? also, who enforces this, without the use of power, and by what right?

 

(!?) you just described socialism as capitalism. I'm glad that you agree with the capitalist concept of free enterprise, but socialism is complete opposite, the collective ownership of means of production

 

what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to)

 

even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily .

 

 

I won't argue against your opinion on libertarians, even though I'd call myself one if I had to label myself. it's such a broad term, just ike all the others

 

 

I agree that all associations should be voluntary. that's one thing I completely agree on. But I don't know what you mean by "between equals". that's a mystery to me

 

 

And supercanuk is passionate about the truth, that's one of the highest virtues. That's why I love debate. in society today people view debates as acts of hostility, but I don't view it that way at all. the purpose of debate is really not to influence another person as much as it is to discover truth. I don't care if if I change anyone's mind because I cannot expect to, nor would I even wish to. people can only decide things for themselves. I agree that not enough people are open to debate

 

debate is worth it if you want to do it.

Edited September 15, 2007 by heyrabbit

[supercanuk]

1) One should neither submit to nor exercise power over another.

2) People should have a say in decision-making in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision.

 

people have a say in decisions after they've been affected by them? they do this iwth an anarchist time machine? also, who enforces this, without the use of power, and by what right?

 

what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to)

 

even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily .

 

 

And supercanuk is passionate about the truth, that's one of the highest virtues. That's why I love debate. in society today people view debates as acts of hostility, but I don't view it that way at all. the purpose of debate is really not to influence another person as much as it is to discover truth. I don't care if if I change anyone's mind because I cannot expect to, nor would I even wish to. people can only decide things for themselves. I agree that not enough people are open to debate

 

debate is worth it if you want to do it.

 

 

Thanks btw for the reply and indeed I am passionate about the truth. I think that's why even if we disagree we get along really well because we both view truth and the ability to seek it out as a virtue.

 

That said, I disagree about a few comments:

 

"

1) it's impossible for nobody to submit to or exercise power. even if it were possible, who then deals with a criminal?"

 

Anarchism does not deal in many absolutes, or at least the anarchism i have studied and tend to agree most with (although lately I have been a bit of a lapsed anarchist because i realized i don't believe in "isms"). Anarchisms aim is not for nobody to submit to power, it's to minimize the use of power and coercian which is unjustified. The majority opinion to condemn a person to life imprisonment is considered legitimate because it is the decision of the whole. Obviously there is room for serious error, what if there isn't enough evidence, what about mob rule, etc, however that being said one cannot discount the legitimacy of democracy, and the current liberal democracy makes all kinds of mistakes in the criminal justice field.

 

"what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to)"

 

Capitalism is in fact not at ALL fundamentally opposed to fascism or dictorships. In fact, most of the worlds largest and most powerful corporations made millions if not billions off of dictators who allowed them to operate in their country with extremely low risks and high profits.

 

And not every right is a property right, one has the right to life and that is not necessarily a property right. Also, capitalism has and continues to expropriate land for the benefit of itself by operating in countries where the community have absolutely no say in their condition. I think that to be legitimate capitalism must be regulated by governments which are controlled by people, not profits, sadly i don't see this as the current trend in world politik.

 

"even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily ."

 

Hierarchy can cause all kinds of problems, often people who do all kinds of horrific things because of the structure in which a person operates. If one is not afraid of the authority above them who control their livelihood what is the liklihood they will continue to commit terrible acts? Well it's less likely that they will do bad things if they don't have a boss telling them what to do. This is a really simplified response and thats because im in a rush.

 

I gatta go, i will continue t his later.

[Moonlight_Graham]

children are stupid, end of story.

what he said

[LonelyWreckage]

Definitely not. There are so many flaws (as some have been pointed out already) in the idea that I'm convinced society would be far worse than it is now.

 

To just pick on one point, because I'm a lazy bastard, you really think a 5 year old is going to opt for education (whether in a school or home) when he/she can be outside playing? We'd have a generation of uneducated kids with no hope.

Edited September 16, 2007 by LonelyWreckage

[spring90]

it always amazes me that you cats can write these huge socio-political essays on a message board. kudos, sirs. i don't have the attention span to do that. or read them.

I agree as well..

 

I'd also like to say that as an unschooler, It has been drilled into my head that the education system sucks.

[Bizud]

From the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Non-propertarian right:

 

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily .

 

"The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live" -Leo Tolstoy

[Azalroth]

Your still here

[heyrabbit]

Thanks btw for the reply and indeed I am passionate about the truth. I think that's why even if we disagree we get along really well because we both view truth and the ability to seek it out as a virtue.

 

That said, I disagree about a few comments:

 

"

1) it's impossible for nobody to submit to or exercise power. even if it were possible, who then deals with a criminal?"

 

Anarchism does not deal in many absolutes, or at least the anarchism i have studied and tend to agree most with (although lately I have been a bit of a lapsed anarchist because i realized i don't believe in "isms").  Anarchisms aim is not for nobody to submit to power, it's to minimize the use of power and coercian which is unjustified. The majority opinion to condemn a person to life imprisonment is considered legitimate because it is the decision of the whole. Obviously there is room for serious error, what if there isn't enough evidence, what about mob rule, etc, however that being said one cannot discount the legitimacy of democracy, and the current liberal democracy makes all kinds of mistakes in the criminal justice field.

 

"what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to)"

 

Capitalism is in fact not at ALL fundamentally opposed to fascism or dictorships. In fact, most of the worlds largest and most powerful corporations made millions if not billions off of dictators who allowed them to operate in their country with extremely low risks and high profits.

 

And not every right is a property right, one has the right to life and that is not necessarily a property right. Also, capitalism has and continues to expropriate land for the benefit of itself by operating in countries where the community have absolutely no say in their condition. I think that to be legitimate capitalism must be regulated by governments which are controlled by people, not profits, sadly i don't see this as the current trend in world politik.

 

"even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily ."

 

Hierarchy can cause all kinds of problems, often people who do all kinds of horrific things because of the structure in which a person operates. If one is not afraid of the authority above them who control their livelihood what is the liklihood they  will continue to commit terrible acts? Well it's less likely that they will do bad things if they don't have a boss telling them what to do. This is a really simplified response and thats because im in a rush.

 

I gatta go, i will continue t his later.

I really don't think we are fundamentally opposed in our ideas. we disagree symbolically, not principally. What I mean is that we both attach different meanings to the word "capitalism". from my perspective, I don't see any government in the world as being capitalistic. When I talk about capitalism, I'm only talking about laissez-faire capitalism, not mixed economies. I don't view a government as being capitalistic if it interferes in the economy, which is every government. I disapprove of our present day government as well as the U.S. government. capitalism seems to take blame for everything wrong in a mixed economy. When there is a monopoly of power, it's not becuase someone was motivated by profit, it's because someone along the way was able to gain profit at the expense of others. The socialist-collectivist policies implemented in our government allow for the greedy to be the immoral. a false capitalist government is a recipe for disaster. The world isn't a bad place because people are greedy, it's becuase people aren't greedy enough, or moral

 

 

see you want to minimize the use of unjust power and coercion. That's what I believe, except I'd go one step further. I want to eliminate it. I want to eliminate immoral coercion because one can't say that it's alright to be moral only part of the time. If you're only striving to minimize immorality, it means you accept some level of immorality.

 

Hierarchies is not intrinsically good or bad. It depends on the morality behind the construction of them. Nobody can have the "right" to economic equality for obvious reasons. that's the basic argument against socialism. A boss has no right to control someone's life, but firing someone or making one's life difficult does not necessarily constitute coercion. Employment is a voluntary exchange of value. I can't complain if my boss exercises his authority over me for the same reasons that I can't blame McDonald's if they refuse to sell me a big mac. It all depends on the contract.

 

All rights are inherently property rights because when you own something, you own it because you have the right to the product of your effort. mostly the currency is material, but not necessarily. owning a song is the same as owning a car. But nobody has the "right" to car, or the "right" to a song, unless they've earned it.

Edited September 17, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

I really don't think we are fundamentally opposed in our ideas. we disagree symbolically, not principally. What I mean is that we both attach different meanings to the word "capitalism". from my perspective, I don't see any government in the world as being capitalistic. When I talk about capitalism, I'm only talking about laissez-faire capitalism, not mixed economies. I don't view a government as being capitalistic if it interferes in the economy, which is every government. I disapprove of our present day government as well as the U.S. government. capitalism seems to take blame for everything wrong in a mixed economy. When there is a monopoly of power, it's not becuase someone was motivated by profit, it's because someone along the way was able to gain profit at the expense of others. The socialist-collectivist policies implemented in our government allow for the greedy to be the immoral. a false capitalist government is a recipe for disaster. The world isn't a bad place because people are greedy, it's becuase people aren't greedy enough, or moral

 

No matter how much capitalists insist otherwise, greed is still not good. I mean, it's pretty much universally recognized as the opposite of good. As for "socialist-collectivist" policies encouraging immoral behaviour, you're gonna have to explain that one to me.

 

Also, anarchist socialists generally believe that money made from profit, interest or rent is obtained by exploitation. That's because people ought to have control of their dwellings and control over their own work (since what one does is a central part of one's life, one should be self-managing in it). And consistent anarchists are out to abolish power relations in every sphere of life, including the workplace and the family. Since complete autonomy is often impossible in these areas because people work and live together, democratic structures are necessary.

 

All rights are inherently property rights because when you own something, you own it because you have the right to the product of your effort. mostly the currency is material, but not necessarily. owning a song is the same as owning a car. But nobody has the "right" to car, or the "right" to a song, unless they've earned it.

 

First of all, rights are a social construct; there's nothing natural about them. Second, if all rights are derived from property, two things follow. One, if you have no property, you have no rights. Two, equal rights do not exist. So it's pretty obvious why anarchists and socialists, as egalitarians, would reject your definition of rights.

[Azalroth]

Sadly I read all that....and it's off topic...awesome

[heyrabbit]

I retract my statement that capitalists are "greedy". That was an poor and incorrect choice of words on my part. Capitalists are "selfish". There's a big difference.

 

What makes socialist-collectivist policies immoral? what's immoral about slavery? What's immoral about me having the "right" to your car and exercising that right?

 

 

 

Also, anarchist socialists generally believe that money made from profit, interest or rent is obtained by exploitation. That's because people ought to have control of their dwellings and control over their own work (since what one does is a central part of one's life, one should be self-managing in it). And consistent anarchists are out to abolish power relations in every sphere of life, including the workplace and the family. Since complete autonomy is often impossible in these areas because people work and live together, democratic structures are necessary.

 

What you've essentially just said is that anarchists are out to abolish power(coercion), which is interesting because that is the definition of the concept of "rights" - the freedom to act. So you think anarchists fight for rights. The only problem is that you're talking about socialist anarchists(!). That's where the contradiction lies. Man has rights sometimes and other times he is to be a slave? -- by what right?!

 

This is why I ask what code of ethics and morality anarchism is based on, even though I already know the answer.It's a system that's self-contradictory and its principles are inevitably vague and arbitrary. Since it is a system not based on reality, the lack of a clearly definable source makes hard for anyone to define what a "right". One is left to decide arbitrarily what is "right" and "good".

 

That's why you can only give a vague explanation of the implementation of our rights; we ought to control our "dwelling" and "work". That could mean any number of things. Does that mean we have the right to own our homes, or only live in them? If we don't have the right to own our homes, we are slaves. If we have the right to own our homes, but not our means of production, we're still slaves!

 

This is why Capitalism is the only system built on the concept of individual rights. it's the only completely free system.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say that rights are natural. it's a man made concept with property as its only currency.

 

 

One, if you have no property, you have no rights.

Right! That doesn't mean that if you don't own a condo, you have no rights; Remember that the first right is the right to the property of your own person(to live). What use is a condo to you if I lock you in a cage?

 

Two, equal rights do not exist.

 

True again, partially!

 

My rights exist, they're just not currently implemented properly. A right is not a guarantee, it's a moral principle. i.e. I have the right to not be murdered. that's not a guarantee that I won't be murdered.

 

If by "equal" you meant "equal portion of property", which is how socialists generally use the term, I don't agree! I don't want "equal" or "fair" rights. those are misleading terms. I want correct, moral rights to be enforced.

[Bizud]

What you've essentially just said is that anarchists are out to abolish power(coercion), which is interesting because that is the definition of the concept of "rights" - the freedom to act. So you think anarchists fight for rights. The only problem is that you're talking about socialist anarchists(!). That's where the contradiction lies. Man has rights sometimes and other times he is to be a slave? -- by what right?!

 

I don't see the contradiction. I'm talking about abolishing power over others, and empowering individuals by freeing them of rule by bosses, parents, landlords, etc. Only capitalists call socialism slavery. Just the same, socialists call capitalism slavery.

 

As for your assertion that rights must come from "reality," all rights and moral principles come from ideology, not some objective reality. They're ideas about how society ought to be organized and they change over time. Property rights, for example, at one point included the right to own other people. Now they don't. At this point, people can own the work that others do. If I work in a factory, the factory owner owns the products of my labour and pays me a wage. That's why anarchists/socialists believe in workers controlling the workplace. I don't think that's a vague principle at all, it's democratization of life, it's the obliteration of power relationships, it's the quest for a society of equals where people are self-managing, without bosses or rulers, based on community and love and respect.

 

If by "equal" you meant "equal portion of property", which is how socialists generally use the term, I don't agree! I don't want "equal" or "fair" rights. those are misleading terms. I want correct, moral rights to be enforced.

 

Yes, socialists do believe that people have to share what little resources we have left on this planet, and that our institutions should encourage love and community, not selfishness and individualism. And I'm an anarchist, I think it's very important that individuals are not subordinated to the collective - but my property is not part of me.

 

In addition, I agree with Noam Chomsky that rights systems are not axiomatic and without contradiction. I have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to slander another, and not the right to yell fire in a theatre, etc. I have the right to my income but not the portion that is taxed. In an anarcho-socialist system I have the right to control my own work, but if I'm working with another person, neither of us can fully control our own work on our own - we have to use democratic structures (hierarchical structures are unacceptable).

 

Sadly I read all that....and it's off topic...awesome

 

I don't think we can really discuss liberating youths from oppressive control unless we can establish why control is oppressive. But to get somewhat back on topic,

 

question: if we get ride of this "adult and child" thing, does this mean we can charge a 7 year old for murder and send him to maximum security prison? and does this mean that a 45 year old male can have sex with a 12 year girl legally? just asking.

 

If you're asking me, I don't think we should be sending anyone, young or old, to maximum security prisons unless we've determined that he or she cannot possibly be reintegrated into the community (and that means establishing reintegration into the community as a priority for the justice system - priority number one, in fact). And, even if someone is locked up reintegration can still be pursued to a limited extent.

 

As for sex with minors, yeah I think a 12 year old should legally be allowed to consent to sex. There was a recent case where an adult man was acquitted of statutory rape of a ten year old girl, because the girl lied about her age to seduce the guy. She sure didn't look ten, I guess. The judge agreed. Here's the thread on another board where we discussed it, I'm "butt newtons." Like Michel Foucault, I do think we should abolish age of consent laws for sex and trust in an individual's ability to gauge for themselves whether they are ready for sex or not. Sexual assault and sexual coercion remain illegal, so what's the problem - unless people are afraid that a bunch of kids are going to run wild with their sexual freedom. Our culture does like to pretend that child sexuality and adolescent sexuality don't even exist, after all, but they do.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

I don't see the contradiction.  I'm talking about abolishing power over others, and empowering individuals by freeing them of rule by bosses, parents, landlords, etc.  Only capitalists call socialism slavery.  Just the same, socialists call capitalism slavery.

 

As for your assertion that rights must come from "reality," all rights and moral principles come from ideology, not some objective reality.  They're ideas about how society ought to be organized and they change over time.  Property rights, for example, at one point included the right to own other people.  Now they don't.  At this point, people can own the work that others do.  If I work in a factory, the factory owner owns the products of my labour and pays me a wage.  That's why anarchists/socialists believe in workers controlling the workplace.  I don't think that's a vague principle at all, it's democratization of life, it's the obliteration of power relationships, it's the quest for a society of equals where people are self-managing, without bosses or rulers, based on community and love and respect.

 

 

 

Yes, socialists do believe that people have to share what little resources we have left on this planet, and that our institutions should encourage love and community, not selfishness and individualism.  And I'm an anarchist, I think it's very important that individuals are not subordinated to the collective - but my property is not part of me.

 

In addition, I agree with Noam Chomsky that rights systems are not axiomatic and without contradiction.  I have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to slander another, and not the right to yell fire in a theatre, etc.  I have the right to my income but not the portion that is taxed.  In an anarcho-socialist system I have the right to control my own work, but if I'm working with another person, neither of us can fully control our own work on our own - we have to use democratic structures (hierarchical structures are unacceptable).

 

 

 

I don't think we can really discuss liberating youths from oppressive control unless we can establish why control is oppressive.  But to get somewhat back on topic,

 

 

 

If you're asking me, I don't think we should be sending anyone, young or old, to maximum security prisons unless we've determined that he or she cannot possibly be reintegrated into the community (and that means establishing reintegration into the community as a priority for the justice system - priority number one, in fact).  And, even if someone is locked up reintegration can still be pursued to a limited extent.

 

As for sex with minors, yeah I think a 12 year old should legally be allowed to consent to sex.  There was a recent case where an adult man was acquitted of statutory rape of a ten year old girl, because the girl lied about her age to seduce the guy.  She sure didn't look ten, I guess.  The judge agreed.  Here's the thread on another board where we discussed it, I'm "butt newtons."  Like Michel Foucault, I do think we should abolish age of consent laws for sex and trust in an individual's ability to gauge for themselves whether they are ready for sex or not.  Sexual assault and sexual coercion remain illegal, so what's the problem - unless people are afraid that a bunch of kids are going to run wild with their sexual freedom.  Our culture does like to pretend that child sexuality and adolescent sexuality don't even exist, after all, but they do.

I can explain why socialism is slavery, although I didn't think I'd have to and I'm not going to. I've never met a person in my life who's been able to explain why capitalism is slavery, without showing a superficial understand of hwat capitalism is. Capitalism fundamentally means freedom of action. To say that capitalism is slavery is to say:complete freedom is complete restriction of freedom.

 

 

Socialism = collective ownership of the means of productoin

your anarchism = abolishing immoral coercion (according to your unnamed code of morality)

 

anarchist-socialism = collective and private ownership of the means of production. Do you see why this position is invalid, before you've even begun? Philosophy is a building; If the foundation is faulty, the rest crumbles. You can say that you "don't want people to boss you around"but that doesn't constitute an ideology, not one anyone's going to take seriously. There has to be some level of consistency throughout, or else it ceases to be a rational philosophy. That's the whole point of logic - non contradictory identification. What happens if you're given a logical equation in math class and you decide to substitute parts of the equation as you see fit. i.e. your logical equation is "not axiomatic".

 

x+2=5. X now means 4 sometimes. Thus, 5-2=2. Sometimes I "feel", without reason, that X is really 9. X=3+2=8(why not?) etc etc

 

Ideology is focusing on the origin of ideas. This,of course, means that you have to identify the origin of your ideas. Every ideology is based on a code of morality.

Like any philosophy in general, your can choose to base your concepts on reason or whim. My opinion is is that it should be based on the facts of reality. This is where we're fundamentally opposed in our ideas. From what I've read, it seems to me that you have no appreciation for reason. I'm not judging you personally, only your ideas.

 

 

When I challenge the source of your ideas, you openly admit, not only that there is no source, but there shouldn't be a source(!). So you're a moral subjectivist. The philosophical equivalent of that would be a creationist. I'm hte opposite. I don't think that our government should be based on anyone's arbitrary whim, disregarding the facts of reality.

 

You're right in agreeing with noam chomsky on the idea that (most) ideologies are not axiomatic. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be based on axioms. (perhaps that's whay he meant.)

 

 

"In an anarcho-socialist system I have the right to control my own work, but if I'm working with another person, neither of us can fully control our own work on our own"

you have the right to control your work, but others have the right to control your work, too? contradiction

And I'm an anarchist, I think it's very important that individuals are not subordinated to the collective - but my property is not part of me.

That's the communist-materialist position, that you don't own your body, that you're property of the state.if you're a socialist, you're a collectivist. and you just said that other's have the right to control your work...

 

You seem to be using the term "power" vaguely, not only to describe moral criminals, but anyone in general who has something you want. i.e. that your boss and teacher shouldn't control you. Do you mean control or influence? Those are two separate things. You can make the free choice to leave your place of employment, but you can't decide that influence is immoral. i.e. "it's a crime for my boss to make me do something I don't want to do". your boss doesn't have the right to set the conditions of your employment - by what right?

Edited September 19, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

I think you're confused and confusing. Morality doesn't come from "objective reality." It does come from human feelings.

 

You seem to be using the term "power" vaguely, not only to describe moral criminals, but anyone in general who has something you want. i.e. that your boss and teacher shouldn't control you. Do you mean control or influence? Those are two separate things. You can make the free choice to leave your place of employment, but you can't decide that influence is immoral. i.e. "it's a crime for my boss to make me do something I don't want to do". your boss doesn't have the right to set the conditions of your employment - by what right?

 

I don't think this is vague at all. How hard is it to understand not having to submit to authority? Abolish bosses! Workers take over the workplace! This is analogous to peasants seizing the land they worked and lived on even though it "belonged" to feudal lords. Anarchism is after all a revolutionary philosophy.

 

you have the right to control your work, but others have the right to control your work, too? contradiction

 

What I said is that people should have the right to control their own work, but they do not all work in isolation. That means some people would be self-employed and others would work in a democratic workplace (that probably means a union). Anarchists say that democracy should replace hierarchy. Pretty. Simple. And I said that where hierarchy exists people are not free. Hierarchical relationships are immoral relationships that benefit the person higher in the hierarchy. All people are equals. POWER TO THE PEOPLE. This is confusing??

 

When I challenge the source of your ideas, you openly admit, not only that there is no source, but there shouldn't be a source(!). So you're a moral subjectivist. The philosophical equivalent of that would be a creationist. I'm hte opposite. I don't think that our government should be based on anyone's arbitrary whim, disregarding the facts of reality.

 

I am a moral subjectivist. Morals do not come from objective reality. The very notion of morality is a social construct. It's created by society and different societies have created different moral codes. Of course, any anarchist society is going to be based on anarchist ethics that you're quite capable of understanding if you want to. People are equals, democracy replaces hierarchy, people are self-managing, don't hurt others - that pretty much sums it up right there. That's what my positions on everything from workplace management to transgender rights to abortion rights to how I interact with my housemates to war are based on. And of course they're based on human feelings. Without emotion there is no morality, since "good" and "bad" are emotion-based concepts.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

I think you're confused and confusing.  Morality doesn't come from "objective reality."  It does come from human feelings.

 

 

 

I don't think this is vague at all.  How hard is it to understand not having to submit to authority?  Abolish bosses!  Workers take over the workplace!  This is analogous to peasants seizing the land they worked and lived on even though it "belonged" to feudal lords.  Anarchism is after all a revolutionary philosophy.

 

 

 

What I said is that people should have the right to control their own work, but they do not all work in isolation.  That means some people would be self-employed and others would work in a democratic workplace (that probably means a union).  Anarchists say that democracy should replace hierarchy.  Pretty. Simple.  And I said that where hierarchy exists people are not free.  Hierarchical relationships are immoral relationships that benefit the person higher in the hierarchy.  All people are equals.  POWER TO THE PEOPLE.  This is confusing??

 

 

 

I am a moral subjectivist.  Morals do not come from objective reality.  The very notion of morality is a social construct.  It's created by society and different societies have created different moral codes.  Of course, any anarchist society is going to be based on anarchist ethics that you're quite capable of understanding if you want to.  People are equals, democracy replaces hierarchy, people are self-managing, don't hurt others - that pretty much sums it up right there.  That's what my positions on everything from workplace management to transgender rights to abortion rights to how I interact with my housemates to war are based on. And of course they're based on human feelings.  Without emotion there is no morality, since "good" and "bad" are emotion-based concepts.

If your opinion is based on your emotion, then from now you'll have to remove "I think" from everything you say. Your justification for anarchism is that you "feel" it's a good system.

 

 

What's the point in debating if you cannot be dissuaded by reason? The whole point of a debate is to quantify and qualify your argument with reasons in order to persuade the opposing person. Why try to rationalize a philosophy you fully admit is not based on reason, only you're arbitrary whim and emotion? Nothing I say can change your mind so long as your opinion is based solely on your emotion, irrespective of reality. I live in reality, so nothing I could effect your opinion. Of course, I don't really believe that. And I don't think you do either, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to rationalize anything; instead of offering reasons, you'd show your emotion to prove your point. you'd display "sadness" and "anger", maybe you'd scream or cry.

 

Our rationality is what makes us human - our ability to perceive abstract concepts based on what we observe in reality. If you were to base all your actions solely on emotion, you'd be reduced to the perceptual level of the range-of-the-moment, like an animal or an infant. If you're hungry, you eat, if you're angry you smash and bang, etc. So do you see what would happen if you based an entire political system on this precept? We'd revert to barbarians! Incidentally, the predominant system of organization for primitive man(and man of today) has been that of the altruist-collectivist. We didn't become civilized until we broke free from these moral precepts and developed an appreciation of rights.

 

That is the morality of the moral-subjectivist, removing the mind from our actions, basing all action only on arbtrary whim and emotion. i.e. Choosing to not be human, thus retarding or reverting the progress of humanity.

 

 

in regards to "abolishing bosses", if you democratize the economy, you haven't abolished authority, you've proliferated it. Everyone has authority over everyone!

 

Morality can only be found with an objective observation of reality. What is moral is what is right, and what is right is what is good, and what is good is what is moral, etc. There's no such thing as "your" morals, or "my" morals. There can only be one morality because morality is either correct or incorrect. Something can't be both moral and bad at the same time.

Edited September 20, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

If your opinion is based on your emotion, then from now you'll have to remove "I think" from everything you say. Your justification for anarchism is that you "feel" it's a good system.

 

 

What's the point in debating if you cannot be dissuaded by reason? The whole point of a debate is to quantify and qualify your argument with reasons in order to persuade the opposing person. Why try to rationalize a philosophy you fully admit is not based on reason, only you're arbitrary whim and emotion? Nothing I say can change your mind so long as your opinion is based solely on your emotion, irrespective of reality. I live in reality, so nothing I could effect your opinion. Of course, I don't really believe that. And I don't think you do either, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to rationalize anything; instead of offering reasons, you'd show your emotion to prove your point. you'd display "sadness" and "anger", maybe you'd scream or cry.

 

You've got a lot of praise for reason and a lot of scorn for passion it seems. I don't think it makes sense to ignore one or the other. I think anarchism is pretty reasonable - dismantle systems of hierarchy and domination and authority to increase human freedom. And I'm passionate about freedom, or else I wouldn't feel this way. Political ideologies are about how we believe human society should be structured. You can't take emotion out of the equation.

 

in regards to "abolishing bosses", if you democratize the economy, you haven't abolished authority, you've proliferated it. Everyone has authority over everyone!

 

This is just antidemocratic sentiment. If everyone involved has a say in how a workplace or household is run, that's not authoritarian. It's authoritarian if some have a say and some don't.

 

Morality can only be found with an objective observation of reality. What is moral is what is right, and what is right is what is good, and what is good is what is moral, etc. There's no such thing as "your" morals, or "my" morals. There can only be one morality because morality is either correct or incorrect. Something can't be both moral and bad at the same time.

 

Morality does not exist in nature. Morality is a social construct - it "exists" only in the sense that humans agree to behave as if it exists. What constitutes moral behaviour varies across time and place and among human beings. At one point usury was considered immoral; now it's not. At one point execution of criminals was considered moral. Now it's not. At one point homosexuality was considered immoral, now it's not. Morality is entirely subjective and what will be considered moral in Canada is not always the same as what will be considered moral in Saudi Arabia. There simply is no such thing as an abstract morality that exists independent of human society.

 

Of course, you don't even think society exists, even though humans are social animals and it's impossible to explain how humans live (i.e. in society) without examining society. Of course, I'm a sociology student so I'm biased.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Bizud

[Moonlight_Graham]

If you still believe in Santa Claus you're discredited from having the responsibility to vot. Or own a gun etc.