Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of "animal rights"
I've been kindly advised to confine controversial political / philosophical debates to the "Food Fight" area of the forum, so I'm going to start this thread, copy quotes addressed to me from other sections of the forum, and reply here instead.
Alex I think you need to look up the definition of Facisim.
The pro-government bias in government-controlled education has tried to redefine fascism for its own benefit, placing it on their irrational left-right political paradigm scale, while in reality it overlaps with communism and many other forms of statism (including what many "animal rights" activists advocate) on the bottom end of the authoritarianism vs freedom scale.
One of the main tenents of such a system is valuing property rights over basic human rights.
That is completely false. Fascism puts the interests of the state above individual rights, including the Natural Right to create, keep, defend, and control your property. A fascist state dictates who may own property and how it is to be used. There is a theoretical difference between fascism and communism in that fascism still uses the profit motive to some degree, but in practice the communist ruling classes have always benefited from their political power in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from a fascist corporatist (the polar opposite of a free market capitalist) making an explicit profit.
It also promotes class inequality and prevents individuals from having a say in their government.
No, in fact there is a strong correlation between a government's authoritarianism and the popularity of its leaders, for very obvious reasons. Places like Nazi Germany and modern-day North Korea are examples of perfect democracy - their governments are very popular and would be reelected in a landslide every single time. The fact that their government has far more influence over the public than the public has over the government is similarly true in any other democracy in the world today. The opposite of all those forms of statism (fascism, communism, democracy) is individual liberty, which in the political context is referred to as libertarianism and in the economic context is referred to as capitalism.
Capitalism does not promote an equality of outcomes of people's actions, which would be absurd, but it absolutely requires an equality of individual Rights. Your capital is your ownership of yourself and the consequences of your actions: your body, your mind, your time, your physical and mental health, your skills, your speech, your reputation, your rights over your children (or any other dependents who don't have full self-ownership), any agreements that you have made with other people, any resource that you have brought into the human economy (i.e. homesteading), and any resource that you acquired from another human being on a voluntary basis. That means Socrates has a Right to life, no matter how many people may vote for him to drink the hemlock, and the same applies to Michael Vick and his property Rights as well!
I would like to know were you get your information.
Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have been the strongest of my philosophical influences, but they stand on the shoulders of a libertarian canon that includes Aristotle, Locke, Bastiat, Spooner, Thoreau, and many others.
It seems that you follow no real economic school of thought or any clear social science theory.
My economic theory is firmly based in the so-called Austrian School of free market economics, which I consider to be the only school to be grounded in solid scientific theory - everything else is politically biased demagogy.
Other noteworthy economic influences have included the three generations of the Friedman family (more David than Milton, and Patri's ideas on intergovernmental hyper-competition played their part as well), and many of the agorist ideas floating around the Free State Project movement, of which I am a member.
(I'll reply to some other posts addressed to me in a bit.)
I have always prefered the New Economic Theory branch of economics. They address that apart but often ignored flaws that are inherient in market based theories. They assume that everyone is or can be an equal player in all markets. However, for an type of activity to occur in a market there has to be inequality. You will only trade or work if you do not have all you need. Also, it assumes that everyone is cognisive of all activities of the market. However, for their to be profits - an essential market driver - a certain amount of people must be in the dark about the real value of goods and services.
When I was taking development economic courses in grad school, the Human Capital Theory really struck me. Human capital is needed to 'activate' land and capital. Therefore, the focus of development, and all economies, should be on developing human capital.
I have often reflected on this since my thesis was on women's international industries in West Africa. It seems that we have tons of inactivated human capital. Their is a growing uneducated underclass in this world. This is a group that does not fully participate in our society let alone our economy. They don't come up with new inovations, create enterprises, add to industries or to the fields of science and technology.
Our focus should be on maximizing everyone's 'capital' or potential. I disagree that this would be through complete liberalization of the economy. Liberalization will inevitably lead to high levels of inequality and massive boom and bust cycles that cause economic ruin.
BTW, Alex there is a very good reason that we have both federal and international regulatory commities and regulations. The economic boom of the 1920's, depression of the 30's that lead to the rise in Facism and Communism and a horrific war in the 1940's opened up many peoples eyes to the extreme dangers of Lassez Faire economic approaches.
There never will be a perfect society, because their are no perfect people.
I never claimed that Anarcho-Capitalism is an instant utopia, but it is a rational ideal that makes the most economic sense moving forward. The present system does not - it keeps billions of people in poverty, it clips the wings of science and technology, and it squanders away the vast majority of the human potential just to remain in control.
Your idea of an ideal society scares me frankly
Why does having to pull your own economic weight and having to respect the Natural Rights of others scare you so much? You can still have your pets and your local government (ex. a voluntary neighborhood association), etc, you just can't force your way on others who choose to live outside of your government. Is that so bad?
even though I know that ours is far from perfect and getting worse day by day.
It's not just "far from perfect", it is built on a rotting socialist / Keynesian foundation that simply cannot function in the long haul. As modern technology becomes ever more powerful, humanity cannot exit the 21st century the way it has entered into it - it will either be a far freer capitalist society or it will be a tyrannical dystopia similar to 1984 by George Orwell or Anthem by Ayn Rand.
Someone around here said something along the lines of talking about things that will never be is like asking your father for a unicorn. Hmm. I live in the real world and not in some fictional society of whatever-you-call-it.
I said that about things that are contradicted by reason. 2 + 2 does add up to 4, even if the rest of the world thinks it doesn't. Logic -- not chronological snobbery and not the easily-manipulatable mob of voters -- should decide what is real and what is fictional!
I admire that you are trying to be self-sustaining,
In a capitalist system everyone is required "to be self-sustaining": if you want to put 10,000 kittens a day in a giant blender, then you have to pay for it. If there's a shortage of kittens or giant blenders, then their prices would naturally rise, and some of the thousands of businesses looking for a crack in the market will find it cost-effective to start producing more of those things. (It's very easy to produce as many billions of kittens as the marketplace will bare.)
If you're referring to my veganism, however - I'm only a vegan in a descriptive sense, I am not a part of the mainstream vegan movement. That's why I call what I'm doing "The Tax Resister Diet" instead. Any region trying to achieve secession should at least try to achieve agricultural independence first - who do you think would have won the American Revolutionary War if 90% of the colonies' food was imported from Mommy England?
but if you do like in a country, then you are bound by those laws whether you like it, admit it, or not.
A person is only bound by Natural Law (including the authority of her parents / guardians if she's still a minor) and by the contracts that she has entered into voluntarily. The Natural Law is a universal economic concept - it can even be observed in AI entities in a computer simulation and hypothetically even in extraterrestrial societies, as long as they have the similar capacity for rational thought and individual action that humans do.
So why then a person born on one plot of land be a subject of one "government" and a person born elsewhere a completely different one? I'm a big fan of Singapore, for example, as almost like a giant neighborhood association - almost everyone is there by choice and anyone can leave at any time, but that level of legitimacy fades away as the size and scope of government grows. Governments do not have a legitimate claim to property, as individual human beings do in exchange for bringing those resources into the human economy, governments only exist through violent force, and that is how ours has spread itself, from sea to shining sea and a thousand military bases all over the world! Even libertarian projects like Seasteading don't guarantee easy freedom, because if we ever get too annoying the government that has to compete with us will just send its navy to make us disappear, and the tax-victims paying for that navy will have no choice but to support it!
You have a right to your opinion, but don't forget that I have a right to mine.
Your freedom of speech is not in question here, what I am challenging is your alleged freedom to impose fines and other penalties on people who treat their animals in ways you don't agree with.
Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't make it wrong.
Initiating aggression against people like Michael Vick is in fact wrong, for the reasons that I will continue to list throughout this thread.
I have no doubt that this society will not stand forever as it, but I'm just as certain that what you describe will fail as well.
We are not asking for anyone's support, just that you stop initiating aggression against us. You are free to think that free market capitalism will fail, but history has demonstrated otherwise - every single time!
Anarcho-Capitalist is an oxymoron.
You're thinking of Anarcho-Socialism or any other flavor of anarchism that leaves behind the massive power vacuum originally held by the state, which is inherently unstable and very quickly leads to a bloodbath as various fractions fight over who gets to make the rules. Gradualist Anarcho-Capitalism on the other hand doesn't aim to destroy the state, just compete with it and gradually prove itself superior due to tax competition and an inevitable inflow of brains and capital (read Atlas Shrugged). An Anarcho-Capitalist society is stable because it is decentralized, the power vacuum of the state is filled with every individual's rights (including property rights, the right to self-defense, parents' rights, contract law backed by polycentric arbitration authorities, etc). The numerous "Bill Gates will just take over the world" scenarios have been debunked ad nauseum.
Capitalism is at its heart exploitative and any self respecting anarchist would cringe at the thought of allowing others to exploit them or others. I have no idea where a crazy right wing free market loving libertarian would call themselves an anarchist ( I have always hated the bi-polar ideas "Anarcho"-Capitalists ) but whatever, labels are labels and while your ideas are valid and welcome in a discussion of the future, freedom and liberty can not coexist with exploitation and capitalism. I am sure that many anarchists are past the "lets destroy everything" and have realized that we need to create alternative models alongside that can eventually replace it. For example single mothers might not want to support a sudden revolution that might take away security. David Graeber talks about building alternative institutions that provide models and create the future we want realized today. However, replacing crappy capitalism with a possibly more exploitative form is ridiculous. No Gods, No Masters & No Capitalism.
De-hijacking the abortion thread by moving my replies here:
Yes, and dirt exists for its own purpose too - don't you dare step on it. Where do you draw the line? The current distinction seems to come from "cuteness" and nothing else!
As human beings have conquered the Earth thousands of years ago, the more successful species have learned to survive by deriving benefit from the human civilization. If human beings were to suddenly disappear from the earth, the majority of animals would simply starve! The populations of wild birds are already dwarfed in comparison to the world's 30+ billion domesticated chickens, etc, and that ratio will only continue to increase! Those chickens cannot till the soil and plant and harvest their own corn, and only so many can survive off bugs and other wild rubbish. The most successful species have learned to hijack the emotions that nature intended for you to have toward human babies, to the determent of the human desire for offspring of their own! Their "love" is a mere illusion, if your pets were hungry enough or if you were small enough they would just rip your guts out and play with them while you die. You might be interested in living in a different reality where all cute fuzzy creatures are your equals, and it is your right to simulate that reality on your own property, but you have no right to impose it on others through the guns of the state!
Oh, sorry. I forgot that our Aryan chickens are superior to natural biodiversity. Obviously we should sterilise the rest of the world for their benefit, to create a worldwide system of monocultures.
Look, you're just not going to convince me that money=freedom; I barely believe in the concept of ownership at all, and money has never been a motivation for me in any way, shape, or form. My aims in life have nothing to do with fiscal gain; I'd be just as happy living out of dumpsters and reciting poetry on the street as I would be studying mitochondrial DNA in a laboratory (on government funding). But I know I would never be happy working to 'please the market.' I come from a long line of people who have ditched profitable employment for hand-to-mouth happiness. I've seen that communities tend to be happier when they're barely scraping along but are interdependent and supportive of each other without expectation of repayment. Your system would never work universally, because that's just not how humans work. Same reason total anarchy wouldn't work, and equally why communism tends to fall flat on its arse as well. They operate on the assumption that broad blanket statements can be applied to society as a whole, and, well... that just doesn't pan out.
So that I could watch your civilization collapse with a clear conscience.
That was an extremely violent thing to say.
Well, I've been watching this whole thing unfold and get twisted around and muddied....and have been keeping myself as mere spectator partially out of laziness and partially out of pain impeding my ability to fully complete the thought process required to explain what I am about to attempt.... so if slightly unclear, forgive me and I will attempt to answer/clarify any points that raise questions.
As a follower in Thelema, following the tenants of Liber Oz, I believe I understand your reasoning and philosophy. One does have a right and responsibility to do whatever their Will is. However, they also have the responsibility to accept the outcome it produces. It is this part that hangs so many up I find.
Your reasoning as it is about the 'nanny' government does hold some merit. I refuse to accept one has no choice but to accept/lay victim to citizenship and the rules/regulations that result of it when one can secede, and be free of the laws governing that land/country/state/whathaveyou.
Essentially, one does have a choice.
ETA: Alex, you just posted as I was writing this, and I am unable to read/augment this right now....as I need to lay down with a heating pad again.
Wow, I responded to this fella ONCE and he called me a Marxist.
I'm not a Marxist or a communist. I was born in Soviet Russia and lived there for 6 years right before the fall of communism. I know perfectly well, through first-hand experience, about how much communism sucks, thank you.
It's all about BALANCE. Total socialism and total capitalism are both flawed. I'm fine with a capitalist system under which social programs exist. Such as Medicare, food stamps, and lots and lots of taxes to pay for those things.
What bothers me about these so-called "anarcho-capitalists" is that they pretty much believe that the less skilled/ less fortunate members of society deserve to die. And as someone who was raised on food stamps, I've gotta say, that offends me.
And furthermore, the idea that less fortunate members of society don't deserve support is WAAAAAY more violent than fines/taxes what have you. Come on now.
Ah, aryanism - a concept so moot it is etymologically linked to countries as distant as Ireland and Iran. But as far as I can tell, it has absolutely nothing to do with chickens. You probably just like to pepper your equally moot environmentalist accusations with buzzwords to make them seem more important than they really are.
Well, it's a shame you aren't as well-versed in English as you are in Googling semi-relevant links to try and make your posts look legit. Perhaps if you spent more time on the former and less on the latter, you'd realize that far from referencing the Indo-Aryan group of languages or attempting to be inflammatory, I was drawing the comparison between eugenics and breeding animals to be 'ideal' for human purposes. We could breed people so that there are no genetic disorders or even aesthetic imperfections, and leave the inferior human beings to the mercies of collectors who think them amusing curiosities, but that would be point-blank wrong. There, is that simple enough for you?
How many Red Lories does this universe really need, given that we can clone as many as we like at any time and even genetically engineer new species of birds that are much better looking.
If you actually think this is about birds being 'pretty,' then you're even more of an idiot than I thought.
You have it perfectly backwards. The universe is sterile in our absence, and humanity (and any other rational beings that may exist) are what gives it value.
Look at me! I think I'm important! I have no concept of the idea that maybe human intelligence is not the most important thing in the world! I don't have the breadth of mind to envision the possibility that something I don't understand and cannot put into my own terms has any value!
Money does not equal freedom, freedom equals freedom. Money is just a standard means of exchanging materialistic value, and most things that human beings need to survive and be happy are indeed materialistic in nature: food, clothing, shelter, security, medicine, nail clippers, Web-servers, Firefly-class spaceships, spotted owls, etc.
I believe it is a great social injustice that such basic necessities as food, clothing, and medicine are commodities to be bought and sold. I've lived in the US, in Canada, and in the UK, and I know first-hand - as much as people complain about taxes, the second they find out they need a heart transplant, they're suddenly very, very grateful that the government is willing to pay for it. I've watched my mother die, slowly, and seen the frustration and the futility of privatized healthcare. I've also rushed into the ER while visiting my family in the States, and felt the immense relief of my anxieties as I realized that my provincial healthcare would be willing to cover that.
Eating out of the dumpster most often constitutes trespassing and/or theft (and who will pay to have your stomach pumped?), and receiving government funding definitely constitutes theft.
No, no it doesn't. You threw it in a dumpster, you obviously don't want it. You've given up possession of it, so it's free for the taking. And trust me, with what gets thrown away by the megacorporations in the interest of earning a greater profit, it's not an issue of stomach-pumping, it's an issue of finding thirty people with whom to share the feast.
You are using incorrect definitions of terms. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is not "total anarchy", it is "total capitalism" (a "chickpea" is not a "chicken"). In a capitalist society you are perfectly free to start or join a commune (as long as it is on legitimately acquired land and all adults are there voluntarily), and live there on your own terms with like-minded individuals who share your vision of what an ideal community should be like. But you are not free to steal from people outside of your commune, violate your fellow communists' "Right to Free Exit", or to otherwise initiate force.
Oh, sorry - I keep forgetting you have no idea what you're on about. I never said anarchy and anarchy-capitalism were synonymous, just that they were doomed to fail for the same reasons. Genius.
Dude, the free-state people you linked to and said you were a part of say they are libertarian, and all the ideas you are putting forth are generally labeled libertarian. If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it. I now I didn't put a link into David Graeber's name, but you're a big boy, you can check it out yourself. Maybe in a book and not on wikipedia(gasp!) But dissing something you don't know anything about doesn't make you sound as smart as you think it does. I agree that just proclaiming that without rule we would be in a utopia is silly. I'm not saying that. I just don't agree with the use of the term anarchist to describe free-market economics. Milton Freeman didn't refer to himself as such. Neither did Keynes to my knowledge. It just seems like a semantic trick to make it seem less greedy. Sorry.
Keynes was not a free-market economist. He encouraged FDR to implement programs to jumpstart the economy during the Depression. The main tenent of his argument was that the economy COULD NOT restore itself after a sharp economic downturn without a large boost from the government - as in spending for job creation. He also believe in regulation. A market could not work properly without controls.