I find it interesting that the socialist anarchist side is not nearly as visible, comparably speaking, as they used to be. Either this is because they have become more quiet, or because the anarcho-capitalists have become louder; I suspect it is a little of both, but more the latter. But somehow, anarcho-capitalism has become the "default anarchism" for a lot more people than was previously the case. Why? Power of communication? Fragmentation of society? Did capitalism "win" and redefine the debate through Reagan and Thatcher, or did liberalism "win" and it is now the thing those who rebel rebel against? Or is it something else? I don't know. It feels like something is amplifying the libertarian voice somehow, but I can't get at whatever "it" is.
The natural-rights approach also provides some other very bizarre results. If I collude with everybody who owns property surrounding yours, I could form a "cartel" (so to speak) and demand that you pay exorbitant rates for anything you transport through our property. Essentially a siege, but with the twist that the one breaking the siege would be initiating force. As you said, they have an odd distinction of what force is. I imagine it follows from the intuitive idea that "if we could stop brute force" (i.e. the "make me" variety), "then society would be much better"; but the people who would use brute force for unpleasant ends here would use other forms of coercion if they couldn't use brute force. So the assumption of "everything else equal" fails.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-09-28 12:55 pm (UTC)The natural-rights approach also provides some other very bizarre results. If I collude with everybody who owns property surrounding yours, I could form a "cartel" (so to speak) and demand that you pay exorbitant rates for anything you transport through our property. Essentially a siege, but with the twist that the one breaking the siege would be initiating force. As you said, they have an odd distinction of what force is. I imagine it follows from the intuitive idea that "if we could stop brute force" (i.e. the "make me" variety), "then society would be much better"; but the people who would use brute force for unpleasant ends here would use other forms of coercion if they couldn't use brute force. So the assumption of "everything else equal" fails.