Monday, 21 February 2011

This is How the Left "Argues"

See the Left-"Libertarian" reply to my post on usury below - here.

Now see for yourselves - Does that philosophy make any sense whatsoever? A world without property rights - could there be anything more silly?!
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. M.P.22 February 2011 at 20:14

    One had to love the guys argument that socialism and anarchy can be synonyms for each other...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matt23 February 2011 at 00:43

    I know. The only think I respect about the views of left-anarchists is the fact they also promote non-aggression. Other than that they only babble on about duties and such other things modern "liberals" also like.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael17 March 2011 at 07:20

    Rothbard wrote about the contradictions of the anarch communists/syndacists:

    "But more deep than that is the fact that Karl after having been an anarcho-capitalist for some time shifted over to become an anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist. I don’t really see any basis for collaboration between the two groups, because even if we are both against the existing state, they would very quickly come up with another state. I don’t think you can be an anarcho-communist or an anarcho-syndicalist. You know if the commune runs everything, and decides for everything, whether it is a neighborhood commune or a mass country commune – it really does not matter in this case, somebody’s got to make the communal decision. You can’t tell me that you’ll have participatory democracy and that everybody is going to equally participate. There is obviously going to be a small group, the officiating board or the statistical administrative board or whatever they want to call it, whatever it’s going to be, it’s going to be the same damn group making decisions for everybody. In other words, it’s going to be a coercive decision for the collective property. It will be another state again, as far as I can see. So I really can’t see any basis for collaboration. That is really part of a broader analysis of the communist versus the individualist position."
    http://murrayrothbard.com/exclusive-interview-with-murray-rothbard/

    It's really quite clear that despite claims au contraire their economic philosophy is incompatible with non agression and anarchy (or even minarch).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt19 March 2011 at 14:32

    I agree. This is why the only anarchist philosophy I see working is the "Left" Liberalism as espoused by people like Roderick Long. He is really an anarcho-capitalist who believes in many leftist values (toleration, fair wages, etc). I am pretty sure if "Left" Libertarian was defined like this most anarcho-capitalists would turn out to be leftists. I really think this aspect is what attracted Murray Rothbard to cooperate with the Left back in his day (unsuccessfully). He probably thought it would be a simple step for them to move to a state-less society, private property viewpoint. Sadly this is not the case. I think one needs to be an A-C first (believe in aggression as the only immorality according to supreme law) and only then add on other beliefs which are then UNENFORCABLE (i.e. he/she can live according to them, but cannot force others to comply). Things like toleration and fair wages are definitely in the second category here.

    Thanks for your comment!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)