Short answer: yes, I’d say for most people ancap would qualify as an ‘illiberal’ ideology, though technically it’s a political ideology originating in recent American history while many if not most of varieties of ancap remain outside the American Overton window.
Communist and monarchist were 2 stereotypical examples I was using from the Left and the Right to illustrate my point. My main point wasn’t about any particular ideologies, so I was trying to stay away from concrete examples in general. Anarcho-capitalism could be framed as an extremized version of right-libertarianism, which originates in classical liberalism. That could be said for other kinds of anarchism as well. While all kinds of anarchism define themselves as being centrally predicated on individual liberty, how they think about it is sufficiently different from how liberal statists think about it, it would be fair to call them ‘illiberal’. The only way for anarchists to change that would be to contest any other, including all more mainstream, definitions, of ‘liberal’ and ‘liberty’.
It’s difficult to characterize ancap in the context of world politics, since it’s almost exclusive to the United States. A lot of varieties of ancap seem like they’re still well outside the American Overton window. Since it’s so hard to characterize in the context of my post was one reason I strayed away from using ancap as an example.
Allow me to break your mental model futher: I’m antidemocracy, yet believe in strong consent of the governed. I read and respect “old socailism” and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap( not classical liberalism nor Austrian economics, Spooner and that branch of americain socailism contains the important elements hundard years earlier), yet deeply respect finance. The rift between me and the other types of anarchists is very deep and go back to debates from old socailism.
I’m not “respectful” of modern liberals, or those other anarchists(they like calling me awfully mean names); and I don’t try to change definitions of liberty or freedom. My politics, isn’t in the word games or popularity contests; but rather economics, Bitcoin and the like are the pure ancap the Trump voters are not quite hereitics but they clearly are lacking something.
I’d rather have someone go to the farmers market (and pay in cash to help them dodge taxes) then vote a certain way. Hell I’d rather have 1 person work under the table then control 100 votes. Economics, not voilence or word games.
Hmm, you left a bunch of relatively offtopic, confusing and unnecessarily political comments since you joined. I don’t know how much you read of the site-content, but my current guess is that it would be better for you to read more of the existing content on the site before trying to engage much further, or to do something else to change your commenting patters.
(This is your first moderator warning, you might receive a temporary ban if we see you commenting more like this in the future)
I’m allot of things, but off topic is not one of them.
The first comment you so rudely deleted, was a joke referencing “the democracy is not consent of the governed” argument; if your missing the context, yes the joke would go straight over your head. You should go read “no treason” by spooner, then the entire backlog of ancap thought before deleting comments; or you know, you could *ask* for context.
(If its not clear, me telling you to read all of ancap thought, this is a joke at your expense because you just told me to read the backlog of less wrong, and I remember reading ai to zombies, its quite long (furthermore this is a meta joke as I’m explaining how humor works and dismantling an argument you made without referencing it directly (Triple parentheses is an alt-right “dog-whistle”, this is relevant as I do this meta-modernist shit)))
For this topic, op was like “talk to and try to understand political extremists”; and I was like “I’m one of those, hi op” with a subtext of “tell me what you ‘think’ you know about my political view”; op heard it loud and clear and went on to explain what he thought ancap was, I responded with corrections; he’s being a bit formal for my taste but this conversation will in theory go until one of us feel he understands enough.
Getting someone up to speed on the subtext and context that follows my political movement is allot of information and work I try to not to that unless someone signals to me they are interested or already in the know. The alternative would be to dump links everywhere I go; I giving you *one* reference and a self contained lesson in how the hidden world of political word play works from my prospective, I think this method is kinder and more effective then just throwing book recommendations at people.
-----
now I “could” have done the “quote, response” communication pattern, for each of my statements and the conversation could have been clearer to an outside view
>> Anarcho-capitalism could be framed as an extremized version of right-libertarianism, which originates in classical liberalism.
> I read and respect “old socailism” and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap
However, I use this style is for debates, I do not wish to trap op on a moving goal post or any such minor thing; I wanted to teach soft subtle things, not “win”.
I tend to write on LW in a frank manner, at least when I’m writing and responding more informally. I figure not hiding what my own likely prejudices or biases might be like this, I am putting all my cards on the table. I.e., it’s what I can do to be honest about the limitations of my own perspective, short of writing some kind of research/analysis essay discussing my own methodology for seeing the world.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my last comment that is what I was trying to do in my OP. All I was trying to say about ancap is that unlike most illiberal political ideologies, it originates in the United States. So in that sense it is unique, and doesn’t easily fit into a broad category. None of the things you’re saying about ancap shock me, so they don’t “break” my model. You do introduce some new perspective on ancap I haven’t been exposed to before. Yet there is no need to be edgy.
I’m antidemocracy, yet believe in strong consent of the governed.
Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
I read and respect “old socailism” and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap( not classical liberalism nor Austrian economics, Spooner and that branch of americain socailism contains the important elements hundard years earlier), yet deeply respect finance. The rift between me and the other types of anarchists is very deep and go back to debates from old socailism.
I’m assuming by “old socialism” you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’. I’m vaguely familiar with what you’re referring to. My history of political philosophy for the origins of socialism in the 18th and early 19th century is a bit foggy, as I haven’t gotten around to learning as much about that yet as I have about other periods in the history of political philosophy and/or socialism. I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism, but it’s also not clear to me which thinkers belong to, as you call it, ‘old socialism’, classical liberalism, or other schools of political philosophy from that era. Feel free to give me any reading recommendations for the historical origins of the split between old socialism and ancap as understand it.
I’m not “respectful” of modern liberals, or those other anarchists
Yeah, you’ve made this abundantly clear, and are far from alone among ancaps in thinking this way.
(they like calling me awfully mean names)
Yes, this is also a common experience among ancaps.
I don’t try to change definitions of liberty or freedom. My politics, isn’t in the word games or popularity contests
Again, I think you’re interpreting what I wrote with a tone I didn’t try to put on at all. All I meant is people who adhere to different political philosophies might believe individual liberty entails different things from each other. So, it can be useful for people to define, unpack, or ‘taboo’ their words. It’s intended to make it easier and not harder for people to avoid talking past each other. While people can also make playing the game of defining words a trap, that’s not true for all cases of two or more different people unpacking the different conceptions they have of the same political concept.
but rather economics
While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, when that’s obviously not the case.
Bitcoin and the like are the pure ancap
So? What’s your point?
the Trump voters are not quite hereitics but they clearly are lacking something
That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting, while opportunistically making exceptions for some instances of average people legitimizing the state by participating in elections. I think it can be okay for someone like yourself to make that kinds of exception if you qualify them, but you haven’t. Otherwise, for you to come so strong out of the gate as anti-statist (i.e., ancap), and then so casually condone nakedly pro-statist activity like voting for Trump like that isn’t a complete 180, undermines whatever point you’re trying to make.
I’d rather have someone go to the farmers market (and pay in cash to help them dodge taxes) then vote a certain way.
Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive. Even if someone was forced to pick one, personally, I also think for a lot of people, them making a conscientious choice to go to the farmer’s market each week and buy their produce with cash is both a more impactful decision, and makes a more direct contribution to their community, than the choice of who they vote for.
Hell I’d rather have 1 person work under the table then control 100 votes.
What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market, that you think it’s better for there to someone to be a labourer outside the law than to have control of 100 votes in an election. I think most people would agree that for someone to have control of 100 other votes in democracy aside from their own is worse for society than there to be a single illegal labourer. That people oppose illegal labour while also living in a society where democracy is corrupted so it’s like some people have the effective power of 100 votes or more doesn’t mean they agree with how corrupt democracy is. Virtually everyone who even remotely tolerates anything about democracy wants it to be much less corrupt because they think it would be much better. Especially in the United States, while there is polarization around the issue of illegal immigration, while more people are opposed to illegal immigration, on the other side of the issue there is an increasing amount of support for providing illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. with a path towards citizenship. These days, there is even increased support for positions like increased immigration or open borders. So these are positions all kinds of liberals are increasingly sharing with ancaps, if increased immigration or open borders is indeed a typical ancap darling you share.
Economics, not voilence or word games.
I don’t know what you’re addressing here. I addressed above how people can talk about definitions without it just being word games. I don’t know where you got violence from. It’s like you’re writing this response for someone who isn’t here, as opposed to my above comment. And if you’re going to bring up economics, then why not say something about it?
There is no edge here, “I statements” are here not for as an indisputable statement, but to be direct and concise. I guess I’ll adopt the debate style.
>Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
Not my point, I believe juries, not democracy is what provides the consent of the governed in the usa/British empires. I believe that I’m protecting and extending the true value in western civilization, by being anti-democracy; not the sort of thing anyone in the current paradigm is going to get at first brush.
>you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’.
aye, but the they all were alive at the same time, it would be weird to call marx existence as a time period split
>I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism
I think that’s a red scare sort of myth, the new socialists hate me, I hate them, and socialism connections would have been intentionally forgotten for decades at a time. Marx “won” the socialism debate during ww era and then anyone who liked money existing got kicked out.
>While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, ~~when that’s obviously not the case.~~
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
>That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting
Good, I intended to. I always worry that i’m not clear. :3
>Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details. But reading the news from dozens of sources is rapidly mutually exclusive with being upto date on the whitepapers in the coin markets.
>What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market,
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
I’m familiar with agorism. When I said there was ‘liberal’ ideologies and ‘illiberal’ ideologies, I didn’t mean to imply that respectively through each voting and violence are exclusively the ways through which people change the world. It’s not a great framing, I admit, but you’re making mountains out of molehills, and positing me as believing a bunch of things I don’t, and assuming I am much more ignorant than I actually am.
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details.
You’re being pedantic. The fact that economically, all actions have opportunity costs, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The time you took to write the above comment imposed an opportunity cost of time you couldn’t spend spreading agorism, or whatever.
I’m not going to engage your comment further, because it’s not worth my time. Another reason I’m saying this things like this in a public comment because I want it to serve as a signal to others on LW that this is how you tend to engage others, and how you persist in writing poor responses even when someone is willing to engage you. Your comments are making bogus assumptions, are full of grammar and spelling errors that make sections of your writing incoherent, and you’re setting things up to be some kind of petty debate when nobody else was reading that into the conversation.
Short answer: yes, I’d say for most people ancap would qualify as an ‘illiberal’ ideology, though technically it’s a political ideology originating in recent American history while many if not most of varieties of ancap remain outside the American Overton window.
Communist and monarchist were 2 stereotypical examples I was using from the Left and the Right to illustrate my point. My main point wasn’t about any particular ideologies, so I was trying to stay away from concrete examples in general. Anarcho-capitalism could be framed as an extremized version of right-libertarianism, which originates in classical liberalism. That could be said for other kinds of anarchism as well. While all kinds of anarchism define themselves as being centrally predicated on individual liberty, how they think about it is sufficiently different from how liberal statists think about it, it would be fair to call them ‘illiberal’. The only way for anarchists to change that would be to contest any other, including all more mainstream, definitions, of ‘liberal’ and ‘liberty’.
It’s difficult to characterize ancap in the context of world politics, since it’s almost exclusive to the United States. A lot of varieties of ancap seem like they’re still well outside the American Overton window. Since it’s so hard to characterize in the context of my post was one reason I strayed away from using ancap as an example.
Allow me to break your mental model futher: I’m antidemocracy, yet believe in strong consent of the governed. I read and respect “old socailism” and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap( not classical liberalism nor Austrian economics, Spooner and that branch of americain socailism contains the important elements hundard years earlier), yet deeply respect finance. The rift between me and the other types of anarchists is very deep and go back to debates from old socailism.
I’m not “respectful” of modern liberals, or those other anarchists(they like calling me awfully mean names); and I don’t try to change definitions of liberty or freedom. My politics, isn’t in the word games or popularity contests; but rather economics, Bitcoin and the like are the pure ancap the Trump voters are not quite hereitics but they clearly are lacking something.
I’d rather have someone go to the farmers market (and pay in cash to help them dodge taxes) then vote a certain way. Hell I’d rather have 1 person work under the table then control 100 votes. Economics, not voilence or word games.
Hmm, you left a bunch of relatively offtopic, confusing and unnecessarily political comments since you joined. I don’t know how much you read of the site-content, but my current guess is that it would be better for you to read more of the existing content on the site before trying to engage much further, or to do something else to change your commenting patters.
(This is your first moderator warning, you might receive a temporary ban if we see you commenting more like this in the future)
I guess *kicks ground* I’ll talk to a overeager moderator then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBMpZRUl8tw
I’m allot of things, but off topic is not one of them.
The first comment you so rudely deleted, was a joke referencing “the democracy is not consent of the governed” argument; if your missing the context, yes the joke would go straight over your head. You should go read “no treason” by spooner, then the entire backlog of ancap thought before deleting comments; or you know, you could *ask* for context.
(If its not clear, me telling you to read all of ancap thought, this is a joke at your expense because you just told me to read the backlog of less wrong, and I remember reading ai to zombies, its quite long (furthermore this is a meta joke as I’m explaining how humor works and dismantling an argument you made without referencing it directly (Triple parentheses is an alt-right “dog-whistle”, this is relevant as I do this meta-modernist shit)))
For this topic, op was like “talk to and try to understand political extremists”; and I was like “I’m one of those, hi op” with a subtext of “tell me what you ‘think’ you know about my political view”; op heard it loud and clear and went on to explain what he thought ancap was, I responded with corrections; he’s being a bit formal for my taste but this conversation will in theory go until one of us feel he understands enough.
Getting someone up to speed on the subtext and context that follows my political movement is allot of information and work I try to not to that unless someone signals to me they are interested or already in the know. The alternative would be to dump links everywhere I go; I giving you *one* reference and a self contained lesson in how the hidden world of political word play works from my prospective, I think this method is kinder and more effective then just throwing book recommendations at people.
-----
now I “could” have done the “quote, response” communication pattern, for each of my statements and the conversation could have been clearer to an outside view
>> Anarcho-capitalism could be framed as an extremized version of right-libertarianism, which originates in classical liberalism.
> I read and respect “old socailism” and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap
However, I use this style is for debates, I do not wish to trap op on a moving goal post or any such minor thing; I wanted to teach soft subtle things, not “win”.
I tend to write on LW in a frank manner, at least when I’m writing and responding more informally. I figure not hiding what my own likely prejudices or biases might be like this, I am putting all my cards on the table. I.e., it’s what I can do to be honest about the limitations of my own perspective, short of writing some kind of research/analysis essay discussing my own methodology for seeing the world.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my last comment that is what I was trying to do in my OP. All I was trying to say about ancap is that unlike most illiberal political ideologies, it originates in the United States. So in that sense it is unique, and doesn’t easily fit into a broad category. None of the things you’re saying about ancap shock me, so they don’t “break” my model. You do introduce some new perspective on ancap I haven’t been exposed to before. Yet there is no need to be edgy.
Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
I’m assuming by “old socialism” you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’. I’m vaguely familiar with what you’re referring to. My history of political philosophy for the origins of socialism in the 18th and early 19th century is a bit foggy, as I haven’t gotten around to learning as much about that yet as I have about other periods in the history of political philosophy and/or socialism. I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism, but it’s also not clear to me which thinkers belong to, as you call it, ‘old socialism’, classical liberalism, or other schools of political philosophy from that era. Feel free to give me any reading recommendations for the historical origins of the split between old socialism and ancap as understand it.
Yeah, you’ve made this abundantly clear, and are far from alone among ancaps in thinking this way.
Yes, this is also a common experience among ancaps.
Again, I think you’re interpreting what I wrote with a tone I didn’t try to put on at all. All I meant is people who adhere to different political philosophies might believe individual liberty entails different things from each other. So, it can be useful for people to define, unpack, or ‘taboo’ their words. It’s intended to make it easier and not harder for people to avoid talking past each other. While people can also make playing the game of defining words a trap, that’s not true for all cases of two or more different people unpacking the different conceptions they have of the same political concept.
While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, when that’s obviously not the case.
So? What’s your point?
That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting, while opportunistically making exceptions for some instances of average people legitimizing the state by participating in elections. I think it can be okay for someone like yourself to make that kinds of exception if you qualify them, but you haven’t. Otherwise, for you to come so strong out of the gate as anti-statist (i.e., ancap), and then so casually condone nakedly pro-statist activity like voting for Trump like that isn’t a complete 180, undermines whatever point you’re trying to make.
Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive. Even if someone was forced to pick one, personally, I also think for a lot of people, them making a conscientious choice to go to the farmer’s market each week and buy their produce with cash is both a more impactful decision, and makes a more direct contribution to their community, than the choice of who they vote for.
What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market, that you think it’s better for there to someone to be a labourer outside the law than to have control of 100 votes in an election. I think most people would agree that for someone to have control of 100 other votes in democracy aside from their own is worse for society than there to be a single illegal labourer. That people oppose illegal labour while also living in a society where democracy is corrupted so it’s like some people have the effective power of 100 votes or more doesn’t mean they agree with how corrupt democracy is. Virtually everyone who even remotely tolerates anything about democracy wants it to be much less corrupt because they think it would be much better. Especially in the United States, while there is polarization around the issue of illegal immigration, while more people are opposed to illegal immigration, on the other side of the issue there is an increasing amount of support for providing illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. with a path towards citizenship. These days, there is even increased support for positions like increased immigration or open borders. So these are positions all kinds of liberals are increasingly sharing with ancaps, if increased immigration or open borders is indeed a typical ancap darling you share.
I don’t know what you’re addressing here. I addressed above how people can talk about definitions without it just being word games. I don’t know where you got violence from. It’s like you’re writing this response for someone who isn’t here, as opposed to my above comment. And if you’re going to bring up economics, then why not say something about it?
There is no edge here, “I statements” are here not for as an indisputable statement, but to be direct and concise. I guess I’ll adopt the debate style.
>Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
Not my point, I believe juries, not democracy is what provides the consent of the governed in the usa/British empires. I believe that I’m protecting and extending the true value in western civilization, by being anti-democracy; not the sort of thing anyone in the current paradigm is going to get at first brush.
>you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’.
aye, but the they all were alive at the same time, it would be weird to call marx existence as a time period split
>I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism
I think that’s a red scare sort of myth, the new socialists hate me, I hate them, and socialism connections would have been intentionally forgotten for decades at a time. Marx “won” the socialism debate during ww era and then anyone who liked money existing got kicked out.
>While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, ~~when that’s obviously not the case.~~
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
>That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting
Good, I intended to. I always worry that i’m not clear. :3
>Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details. But reading the news from dozens of sources is rapidly mutually exclusive with being upto date on the whitepapers in the coin markets.
>What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market,
Your getting closer to understanding.
This is agorism, the importaint bit to ancap.
For example this was written by spooner in 1858 in “”A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery, and To the Non-Slaveholders of the South”″ “Until such new governments shall be instituted, to recognize the Slaves as free men… sell them firearms and teach them the use of them; to trade with them”
This is a spectrum of course, farmers markets are slightly different from arms dealing. But this is where I feel effective action exists.
I’m familiar with agorism. When I said there was ‘liberal’ ideologies and ‘illiberal’ ideologies, I didn’t mean to imply that respectively through each voting and violence are exclusively the ways through which people change the world. It’s not a great framing, I admit, but you’re making mountains out of molehills, and positing me as believing a bunch of things I don’t, and assuming I am much more ignorant than I actually am.
You’re being pedantic. The fact that economically, all actions have opportunity costs, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The time you took to write the above comment imposed an opportunity cost of time you couldn’t spend spreading agorism, or whatever.
I’m not going to engage your comment further, because it’s not worth my time. Another reason I’m saying this things like this in a public comment because I want it to serve as a signal to others on LW that this is how you tend to engage others, and how you persist in writing poor responses even when someone is willing to engage you. Your comments are making bogus assumptions, are full of grammar and spelling errors that make sections of your writing incoherent, and you’re setting things up to be some kind of petty debate when nobody else was reading that into the conversation.