this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
858 points (91.0% liked)
Memes
45689 readers
833 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is libertarian groups themselves don't stand up against anarchists joining them. I remember Gary Johnson getting booed at an official libertarian party gathering for saying he believes in driver's licences.
Also we already know how libertarianism ends, with robber barons controlling everything and people living in company towns. It's a terrible political ideal.
What's wrong with anarchists? I've never seen anarchists defending pedophilia. Anarchism doesn't mean you just freely cause harm to others; quite the contrary.
Oh most anarchists I know are nice people, they just completely fail to understand that not everyone else is. They don't want to oppress, steal, rape, or murder, and so systems to prevent those things aren't necessary.
You misunderstand when you say "systems to prevent those things aren't necessary." These things are absolutely addressed by anarchists. We're not foolish enough to rely on the goodness of human nature to carry us through. There is no state, there are no hierarchies, but people causing harm absolutely can experience consequences under anarchism. Diffuse sanctions, for example. At worst, they can be removed from the community or group entirely.
But more than anything else, it's important to recognize that mutual aid is just as much a part of human nature as things like rape and murder, and the rate at which rape and murder occur are greatly exacerbated by hierarchies. For example, things like masculinity have to go, and we need to stop putting people in positions of power over others and creating such hierarchies.
And this brings me back to the topic at hand. I cannot conceive of an anarchist who would in any way approve of sexually abusing someone young enough to be considered a minor. Above all, anarchists aim to remove hierarchies, and having a grown adult in a relationship with a young teenager -- this would create such a power differential that I can't imagine any anarchist approving of it or hand-waving it away. The anarchists I know very strongly disapprove of such a thing.
The people we colloquially call "libertarians"(1) on the other hand still seem to support the state as well as hierarchies such as those created under capitalism. In fact, most self-described libertarians I know want to do nothing to address the things you mentioned, as well as nothing to address other harmful things such as the social and systemic discrimination against groups like LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others.
(1)yes, a bit of a misnomer since it would make more sense to call anarchists "libertarians," though no one does, unless we append it with "libertarian left," though even this seems like a silly term for anarchism
American libertarians are rebranded anarcho-capitalists. Outside of the US, libertarians are largely associated with anarchism and other anti-authoritarian socialist ideologies. Any left-libertarian (the kind that would identify as just anarchist, not ancap) want absolutely nothing to do with Gary Johnson. Don't put their shit show of an ideology on us lol
Left libertarians are still opposed to a strong central government which is a core issue with libertarianism.
In your ideal government, how would child porn or slavery be addressed? Let's assume there's a community that formed because they think it's a good thing.
I’m a libertarian and I’m not opposed to a strong central government. I think government only works when it has the power to militarily dominate any competing force.
I just think government should be simple, to minimize the number of ways it can break down and end up becoming a tool of the powerful to oppress the weak.
We currently have a set of laws that’s like twenty feet long when you print it out, bind it, and put it on the shelves.
That’s a lot of complexity for malicious code to hide in. A lot of places for petty tyrants to set up shop and spend their life hurting little people under a government seal of authority.
Turns out, life is complex. It's either this or you end up having "rules for me but not for thee".
But to this point, what would you have your central government in charge of? I'm certainly for axing parts of the central gov and expanding others (For example, I'd nationalize healthcare and drug production and abolish ICE and the DEA). That is, I'd push for a government more concerned with taking care of citizens and less concerned with penalizing inconsequential things like not being born here.
The reason for the miles long laws is because when you don't have them, a capitalist society will work around them. A recent behind the bastards episode on the hawks nest tunnel ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-the-deadliest-workplace-disaster-in-u-s-history/id1373812661?i=1000632417312 ) is a perfect example of how these sorts of regulations get created and grow.
Shitty people exist and always will. It would be foolish of me to say otherwise. The shitty things they do may still happen in a stateless society. Child porn and slavery are being produced in societies with central government right now and very little is being done about it. In a stateless, moneyless society there would be no incentive for slave labor and I think that would largely/entirely disappear.
Child porn is obviously a lot more complex than that and there are several factors in play. First, anarchists and adjacent movement are staunch advocates of community engagement and vigilance. We want to radically change how society functions at the most base levels. If a child is being abused or exploited, it would ideally be easier to spot and act on. There hasn't been a lot of research into what causes pedophilia or how to treat it in a way that would reduce/eliminate people acting on those urges. Research could be conducted into practical and holistic ways to treat their condition. Poverty is strongly linked to sexual violence of all kinds and the abolition of poverty would surely have a big part to play in the reduction of many things, including child sexual abuse. A society formed around the ideals of libertarian socialism present a real opportunity to end the cycle of abuse and that would certainly play a role in reducing child sexual exploitation.
There's plenty more to say about this and there's obviously a lot of detail not covered in my brief comment but there are solutions to this baked into the ideological framework of anarchism and libertarian socialism. I'm not going to say we have all the answers, of course we don't. But a society organized from the bottom up, with a focus on equality, safety and prosperity for all would not only be incentivised to solve these problems, but would be much quicker to act due to the lack of bureaucratic red tape
There's a difference between very little and nothing. In pretty much every libertarian model I know of, if a bunch of child porn producers band together to make the child porn production center, nothing would stop them. The socialist libertarian movement relies heavily on local community action, but that falls apart quickly when the community is, say, a cult.
Centralized gov doesn't have 100% of a solution here, obviously, but it has a lot more power to act, criminalize, and/or force treatment.
I disagree. So long as there's a need for labor, slavery is going to be a possibility. Some jobs suck and in a moneyless society figuring out a way to incentivize someone to take that job will be tough.
There's more than a few examples of slavery in non-capitalist societies.
Yes, there has. Just because there's not sure fire solutions to it doesn't mean it's not widely researched. Would it surprise you to learn that one of the best treatments for pedophilia is talk therapy? It doesn't eliminate the urges but it lowers the risk of injuring a child. The problem is, like other mental illnesses, we don't have cures only long term care to reduce harm.
Putting that aside, covering a philosophical flaw with "Maybe someday research will solve this" is sort of like saying for capitalism "Maybe someday replicators will solve this".
A doesn't follow B. There's no evidence that libertarian socialism would eliminate poverty. And, in fact, I'd argue that while it may solve poverty in some regions it would exacerbate it in others. One of the benefits of a global economy is that we can take advantages of the growing season in one world region vs another. Libertarian socialism imagines a world of isolated islands which is entirely counter productive general efficiencies with the production of goods.
Think about it this way, You can grow oranges in California. You cannot grow oranges in Alaska. In a world where libertarian socialism has taken hold, how would an Alaskan community survive and thrive? On the charity of other communities? What happens when one community sees that "Hey, I could send my aid to alaska, but if I send it to Florida they have some delicious gator meat and maybe they'll be willing to send me more"... opps, just reinvented capitalism.
One of the strengths (and weaknesses) of capitalism is the global marketplace it creates. Localizing with libertarianism presents the same problems faced by rural communities in the old west. If you can't grow it, you do without it.
There are certainly benefits to libertarian socialism, it allows for very fast actions at the local level. But there's a major downside in that without an overarching government getting every community to play nice with one another is basically impossible. In a lib social world you couldn't stop the an-cap dingbats from creating their feudalistic hellscape.
This comes to another fundamental issue with libertariansim of all flavors. They all envision of world where everyone has the same ideology. That world doesn't and will never exist.
Acknowledging that I don't have a crystal ball and can't say with 100% certainty that an anarchist society would be able to eliminate child porn is a weak point? There is a difference between very little and nothing, but compared to the current state of affairs, very little is extremely better.
Jeffrey Epstein, I really feel that I shouldnt have to say more than just that name but I will. Child porn producers, along with human traffickers and other associated enterprises band together RIGHT NOW to do that. There are plenty of examples out there of the people in power being the very ones that consume or participate in these practices. There is no incentive for those with the most authority in our current societies to put an end to child porn, human trafficking, or the material conditions that are known to exacerbate these things. Centralized governments are the status quo and they fail miserably at combatting this time and again. Every day that child porn gets produced and humans are trafficked is more proof that centralized governments are incapable of handling this.
If there are people who consciously decided to eliminate systems of heirarchy and domination on a national scale, then there are enough of them to act on human trafficking and child pornography. A society built on libertarian ideals would detest the institution of child pornography and act to see it's elimination. Killing child pornographers that would fight to continue producing child pornography is not a controversial or complicated idea. Identify the group, get rid of it. If they won't stop voluntarily, kill them. That's direct action and community defense. Cornerstones of libertarian ideology. I'm not going to get into the cult bit, that's an entirely different conversation.
I disagree with that. I point you to David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs for most of my point. People want meaningful work. It's treated as a privilege in and of itself in our current society. If you cut out all the bullshit and evenly distribute the labor necessary to keep society functioning among those who are willing and able to work, people will work a lot less than they are now and they'll be happy to do it.
I'm not advocating for just any non-caoitalist society. I'm advocating for libertarian socialism, anarchism more specifically. It is an ideological school of thought that is opposed to heirarchy and systems of domination. Why would a society that abolished the state on those grounds seek to dominate others through slavery? We have real world examples here. The CNT-FAI, EZLN, and Rojava didn't/don't use slave labor.
That was lazy writing on my part. Yes, there has been research done and some treatments have been developed. I was speaking more in a curative sense. Sure, pedophilia, like depression, schizophrenia, or ADHD may not be curable. But a radical change in environment and material conditions of those affected by pedophilia would go a long way to reducing the instances of people acting on those urges. Paired with further research and development of existing techniques would go even further and potentially eliminate pedophilia. I'm not a psychologist, therapist, etc. and I won't indulge in too much speculation about this because I don't have the answers. But treating pedophilia like a public health risk would be a more useful framework than the one we are currently working under. This isn't pedophile apologia either, people can and have done horrible things because of pedophilia, but our current approach is obviously insufficient.
I agree, but I don't think our current model is working and I don't have specific propositions to aid this. But I believe a libertarian society would be better equipped to handle it than our current system.
Mutual aid is another cornerstone of libertarian ideology. Utilizing planned economies, the internet and current logistical supply chains we could eliminate poverty and scarcity right now. Shifting the focus to making sure everyone is housed, fed and healthy over what's the most profitable is all that's needed. Libertarian socialism isn't about isolation, it about building a self reliant community, sure. But there's no reason to think people in a libertarian society wouldn't help out or cooperate with their neighbors, be it down the road, or 1000 miles away. I point you to democratic confederalism and anarcho-syndicalism for ideas on large scale solutions to organization and logistics in libertarian society.
You're just rehashing the myth that bartering happens in lieu of currency. This has been debunked throughly from every angle and I won't waste my time going through something that is easily googled.
I'm not saying everyone has to play nice together, or pretending that that's what will happen. Sometimes people fight. But in a large area founded on the principles of libertarian socialism, why wouldn't people want to cooperate? Isn't that why they went through the whole trouble of doing a revolution for? In a libertarian socialist world, who would want to live in an ancap society? Free association and self determination are other cornerstones of the ideology. And who, seeing people trying to create and ancap hellscape, would sit idly by and allow them to dominate and oppress others? Not only is it wrong for that system to exist, it's a systemic threat to those around them.
I'm not envisioning a world where everyone has the same ideology. Libertarian socialists embrace the complexity and nuance of the human experience. They want a world where everyone is able to explore and exercise their personal freedoms to the greatest extent possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others abilities to do the same.
First, by what authority can a libertarian society kill another? Should there be some sort of trial? Or do you propose we just ride and kill anyone we deem undesirable? And where's the line? Certainly it's pretty easy to argue that child porn producers and slavers might qualify but what of others? How do you deal with the majority falling into fascism and deciding "You know what, the Catholics are a plague on society and we should eliminate them."
You should, because cults are very real things that would thrive under most libertarian models. They also show a real big problem, with unchecked power it's pretty easy to seriously abuse societies members. Even when they technically have the freedom to leave. What happens if we remove all checks to cults? Do we decide to kill them too when the decide not to continue?
The decision to kill would an act of defense. Organized sex trafficking preys on members of a community. If you see it happen, stop it. If that means killing the perpetrator, you'd need to justify it to your community, but you don't have to kill them to stop it. If you're going to go after the organization, then the course of action would be decided by those impacted by the organization, either by vote or by consensus, whichever applies to your community. And that decision making process goes for essentially anything within a community. Again, check out democratic confederalism and anarcho-syndicalism for in depth explanations.
What you're describing in the second bit is genocide, not fascism. Fascism wouldn't manifest in a bottom-up society. It's a hierarchical system. By the time a society devolves into fascism, it would have ceased being a libertarian society long before. As for how to stop genocide, just don't do it? It's a form of dominance, same as other things we've discussed. Stand with with oppressed, support their liberation and directly act to fight alongside them if you're able to.
And I'm not that knowledgeable on cults, I'm sure someone out there has thought about it but that's not me. Again, they exist now and we're not doing anything about them. When the state steps in, they've gone disastrously. Jonestown comes to mind. Attempts to bring people out of them are by and large grassroots movements and non-profits. Both of those systems would thrive in a libertarian model and they would have a lot less red tape to contend with in order to liberate the cult members.
What checks to cults do we currently have? The LDS church, Jehovah's witnesses, and scientologists are absolutely massive cults that (with the exception of the Jehovah's witnesses) have infiltrated every level of government. Why hasn't the state eliminated cults if they're so capable?
The argument you use there is the same argument used for genocide "We had to defend ourselves from X who are corrupting our society and way of life!". The appeal to community only works if the community doesn't hold prejudices against others.
But further, not how sex trafficking/child porn works. It's not this secret cabal of kidnappers stealing babies in the night. Sex trafficking is almost always perpetrated by a trusted individual. Where this gets real bad is cults like the Oneida cult which pushed for free love of children. And this gets back to my original point, how does the community address a problem when the community IS the problem?
Red tape is not what stops people from addressing cults. It's actually funny you mention Jonestown and mormons because both movements famously relocated their members to escape government control and interference. So you are saying that a libertarian model with even less government control would somehow end cults faster? I really suggest you read up on how cults function and move because quiet literally they are hoping and looking for libertarian areas to setup shop. Cults LOVE to pick and take over small remote locations precisely to escape the pesky government red tape and oversight. (see: Rajneeshpuram as an example).
Not enough, but more than you'd expect. You can leave a cult, sue it if they start tracking you. Cults that abuse children (such as the FLDS) can be dismantled and their leaders arrested. Cults that physically harm or imprison their members can be subjected to legal actions (which is why scientologists put their member prison in international waters). Certainly the current system isn't perfect, slow evolution is the nature of centralized governments. However, that slow evolution also (usually) prevents overreaction.
It's not a question of elimination. You can't eliminate cults anymore than you could eliminate religion itself. (and, in fact, it's likely easier to eliminate religion as there are non-religious cults). The question is one of harm reduction to citizens. One of checks and balances to make sure the state isn't overreaching while simultaneously penalizing organizations that do. It's a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. The issue is these are things only fixed by regulation. Take away all the regulation and you are basically just saying "Well, hopefully that cult will sort itself out".
Jonestown is a really good example of why just leaving them alone is a bad idea. Jonestown happened because the leader of that movement became so paranoid that when a senator visited the community, that was enough to have him push for mass suicide.
Just for your future arguments, ruby ridge is a much better example of centralized government absolutely doing the wrong thing.
I'm honestly not that interested in making further arguments in defense of libertarian socialism. You seem to be more interested in pedantic nit picking about highly speculative models for an ideal society. A lot of this is relying on the idea that society is structured in a similar way, that material conditions that lead to the formation of these things will exist in their current form and that people inherently have ill intentions. You think people will more or less be the same post revolution, or even decades down the line.
I'm not sure what ideology you personally hold, but I'd encourage you to ask the same questions and turn that critical lens inward. You won't like the answers. You may even find some of those base deficiencies indefensible. You have seemingly thought about libertarian socialism a fair bit, but you're clearly lacking in theory and the ability to think within the framework. Your criticism falls flat because of that. If you'd like all the theory and no filler without reading a bunch of books I'll link Anark's A Modern Anarchism series on YouTube. It's a synthesis of many libertarian schoolsof thought into an ideological framework that takes into account many developments over the decade. You're so convinced that you know what's right for the world, why not hear the other sides reasoning?
Fwiw I don't think you're a dick or anything, perhaps a little frustrating but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I've enjoyed this but I just don't have the energy for it anymore. I hope you have a good rest of your day and that you give those videos a listen, it's.good stuff. If you don't mind me asking, where are you coming from and do you have any suggestions for theory that would allow me to better understand where you're coming from? Books, videos, podcasts, whatever. I'm always looking to better understand other people's world view
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
A Modern Anarchism
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Some of us are kinda both. Not many, though.
I agree. Those fuckin anarchists are out of control