Comments on: Why are you a Market Anarchist?

By: Is Anarchism a form of social Darwinism? | A Division by Zer0

Is Anarchism a form of social Darwinism? | A Division by Zer0 — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:24:45 +0000

[...] for contractual agreements, and non-aggression. Proponents of such combinations claim follow two kind of argumentative paths. Either that the principles of a free market are a natural law or that they bring a utilitarian [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:14:12 +0000

Many people still seemed convinced that freedom is capitalism and capitalism is freedom, and it's very hard to convince them otherwise. I think all the anti-soviet propaganda of the Cold War is still having an effect on Americans, though it seems as if at least some are at a point where they are willing to re-evaluate the fundamentals of our current system.
And I like the term "market anarchist" by the way, I may have to borrow it for my own personal arguments…

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:52:20 +0000

Needless to say, I disagree but I'm not in the current mood to expand on this here.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:43:54 +0000

No, there's no way, even if utilitarianism was possible, to arrive to such a conclusion.

By: Yosef McGinnis

Yosef McGinnis — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:30:41 +0000

I am most definitely in the first, though I am open-minded enough to say that a free market may not always (or ever) be the the best solution. This is why I fluxuate around the libertarian left spectrum… libsoc, mutualism, and even agorism (though I would label myself "left agorist" or something, because I see it as requiring a market, not property; and support worker-owned co-ops and the like only).

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:29:40 +0000

Principles can just as well occur via Utilitarianism. The only difference is that they are not arbitrary but begin from an evaluation. Therefore one can be for egalitarianism and liberty because they bring the best utilitarian result.

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:20:33 +0000

Viz., the principled belief in "freedom" for example, leads George to abhor ideas antithetical to freedom.

Why does one have a principled belief in freedom then? One should know as much why they propose maximizing freedom as good as much as if they propose anything following from it. By starting from the point of "freedom is good" you're simply avoiding looking at the point of "why is freedom good?" If one did so, they would discover that it is good for its utilitarian results, something which would of course lead to further questioning.

By: db0

db0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:14:43 +0000

should follow from a principle, else its just a subjective whim.

Then the principle itself is a subjective whim. You cannot avoid the subjective part no matter how hard you try unless you assert an unprovable proposition such as Natural Law or a deity.

By: George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:29:13 +0000

Thanks, that's right on. Especially the part about subjective whim.

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:11:41 +0000

The proposition that one wants "to end 1, 2 and 3" should follow from a principle, else its just a subjective whim. If I may speak for George (and he may correct me if I am mistaken), he does not like to see such things as widespread wage-slavery, propertarian feudalism, hierarchy etc., because of the principles he holds. Viz., the principled belief in "freedom" for example, leads George to abhor ideas antithetical to freedom.