What is up with the comic villain caricature of conservative ideology that appears further down in this post?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
So to a leftist, many far right conservatives feel a lot like comic book villains! Of course it goes the other way too, but that makes sense to me.
Feel free to ask me questions about this ideology if you'd like. You may also find this video worthwhile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bd_H8Cyago
Your arguments might carry more weight if you saw those with opposing viewpoints as more than caricatures.
What you’re describing as “far right” is a sizeable fraction of America. If your views are, out the door, anathema to them, I’m going to de-prioritise them—they’re politically nonviable.
I don’t think your views are nonviable. The language, however, makes the whole package so.
imho lack of political viability should not be sufficient to not prioritize trying to understand something. For example, I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable, but do think understanding such ideologies is important to forming a solid base of knowledge upon which to base my actual positions.
why not?
De-prioritise doesn't mean ignore. It just means it goes down the list. If something has a chance of appealing to the population, it could merit working on. That makes it a priority to understand.
Non-viable politics are fine. They move the Overton window. And they can, as you say, inform broader philosophies. But if something has a chance of being viable, it benefits from more-compassionate framing.
It is in the far right's interests to continue to get press and traction of their irrational ideas. They are a cult of grifters (working the con) in that respect.
We have given these opposing views far too much credit and need to be treated with the same ridicule and vitriol as they deserve.
below a quote from "Capitalist Realism, Is There No Alternative" by Mark Fisher - this is a devastating but interesting read on this subject. (I just finished this last week).
pdf: https://libcom.org/files/Capitalist%20Realism_%20Is%20There%...
"> Watching Children of Men, we are inevitably reminded of the phrase attributed to Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. That slogan captures precisely what I mean by ‘capitalist realism’: the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it. Once, dystopian films and novels were exercises in such acts of imagination – the disasters they depicted acting as narrative pretext for the emergence of different ways of living. Not so in Children of Men. The world that it projects seems more like an extrapolation or exacerbation of ours than an alternative to it."
highly recommend.
Since most right, centre and left politicians in the US are right-wing compared to fx. European politics that doesn't seem like a problem with what he wrote.
So it’s a nonsensical straw horse that actually just helps establish that the terms “right” and “left” are meaningless and only meant to divide and demonize people.
For example, if a huge natural disaster (like hurricane Katrina) wipes out the livelihood of millions of people and the government hasn't provided aid yet. Should a person who is hungry and lost everything be able to go inside a store and take food? He has a human right to live but that store also has property rights over their products. Some (not all) conservatives would argue that the hungry person should be prosecuted for stealing, while most people on the left would argue the opposite.
And your convoluted and unlikely analogy fails because you can’t describe why this person should be allowed to steal food others are willing to pay for. Paying for food allows the store to stock more food to feed far more people, stealing the food forces the store to stop selling food.
Why isn’t the government buying food to distribute to people in need without destroying private businesses?
If I believe in property rights and using government to distribute food to the needy, am I a lefty or a righty? Or is there some other label to demonize me with because I don’t believe all of the exact same things as you and the author?
I broadly agree with that statement, but it demands a definition of terms. Which property rights are human rights? Certainly, the right to a limited liability corporate form is not a human right.
I think you might be interested in William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [1]. The US inherited all its property laws from British common law.
It's a tough read, but it is fascinating. Makes you ask questions like "what is property?" What makes something yours? Another interesting read is Johnson v. M'Intosh [2], which is a bit easier and shorter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_En...
Not at all. It's a benefit of modern nation states and the contracts they extend to their residents.
A monopoly on violence [1] is a fundamental step of the legitimation process of any sovereignty, whether an anarcho-capitalist homestead or a modern nation state.
Property rights (including property held in common by the state) are a benefit of the state contract and are enforced by the same monopoly on violence. If you expect your property rights to be protected, you must engage in the contract (via residency and payment of taxes) with an authority that backs them up those rights. Otherwise, you will have a scenario like Afghanistan, with fluid internal sovereignty and where property rights frequently are managed through violence.
That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement?
> And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing.
Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state.
But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison.
State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.
No, I'm saying you can't make a stable practical system that protects property rights that doesn't use monopolies of violence at some scale.
> Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good.
Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
Monopolizing and using violence to enforce involuntary contracts is already a violation of property rights. So it's impossible to have the two simultaneously. You're referring to a limited form of property rights at the expense of moral rationality that more resembles a feudal system.
> Who protects those "peaceful" people when they are objects of aggression? What happens when one of them commits an act of aggression against another group?
Do you realize you're saying that one group needs to initiate violence (in the form of law enforcement over a social contract imposed at birth) so that we can protect people from violence? You're initiating violence against peaceful people to achieve some political agenda.
“they who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You can describe it in inflammatory sounding terms, but it is the basis of all large human societies, regardless of the model of governance they subscribe to. Please describe the alternative that is free from the monopoly on violence, and please provide examples.
Sure - just a government that, while perhaps monopolizing most violence, also protects citizens' rights to bear arms as a competitive force. And not compelling anyone to enter into contracts like Social Security. As long as every single government expense is the minimum necessary intervention to protect property, that's fine with me. You aren't actually even advocating for anything outside of a monopoly over violence. If that's all you support, that's a very extreme libertarian position to have, so we're not far off. But I suspect you're using this as a method to just try to win a debate and justify your immoral belief system. We should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that immoral actions are necessary but should be minimized. I was originally replying to a self-described communist. You're here debating the nuances of how extreme you can be as a libertarian before it becomes impractical.
The page also quotes:
" Then came the definition from Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind": to be on the right is to believe that some of us were ordained to rule and the rest to be ruled over, and that the world is only right when the correct rulers are enthroned. "
as well as:
"Today, I learned a new definition, courtesy of John Holbo: "Conservatism says the law protects in-group members without binding them; while binding out-group members, not protecting them." "
Not sure which kind of communist you are proposing, but these definitions both would both make any form of vanguardist ideology (inc. marxism, anarcho communism, etc) or ends-justify-the-means ideology inherently 'right'.
The point about the "ordained to rule" and choice to be "ruled over" reminded me of Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
I don't think Cory Doctorow is a vanguardist and neither am I.
We often view those on the right as beliving they should rule over us through acquisition of wealth and subsequent control of the means of production. I don't think it makes sense for billionaires to control our world, which I view as a form of "rule".
When I say I am an anarcho communist, I mean things like: we should make more of the world like wikipedia, and roll back draconian intellectual property restrictions. I do not think I should run an army full of people with guns to control your town. Nor does Doctrow from what I know. I have seen people on leftist subreddits who do think that, but then that's internet comments for you.
How do you justify creating a total ordering of rights in this way? And why do you think that there is no intersection between these two sets: "human rights" and "property rights"?
Also I find this theoretical stuff hard to explain in detail. I am a full time engineer, but I'd like to spend more time reading theory so I could easily and concisely explain all of this stuff in my own writing and when I talk with others.
My explanation is not super important though, because I do not believe I should impose my beliefs on you. There are however places where our beliefs (and the law) intersect. For example if you start a company that makes something really useful, but you include a little software lock or a hardware ID circuit that locks down the products ability, do I have the "right" to bypass your lock? Do you have the right to send police in to my town and stop me from using the item I unlocked?
That is the domain where our ideas intersect. Where you and I have reason to care about each other's beliefs. In that case I should get better at explaining my side, and I may want to fight to reduce the laws that give you this control over me.
But I am an anarcho communist. I am also a left-libertarian. I think property rights are useful, but I think it is wrong for a huge store of grain to sit full behind a barb wire fence while people starve outside.
If only the world worked by such simplistic rules... take the grain, and thus steal from / starve the farmer or the people who work to distribute grain to market?
I won't reply further to avoid continuing the discussion further, but I had to correct the assertion that my view on this is simplistic.
So you've made a mistake associating leftist ideology with authoritarianism. There is both authoritarian leftist ideology and non-authoritarian leftist ideology.
And then there's Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam. Their country was occupied by the French and later invaded by and viciously attacked by the United States. So they were communist and perhaps emphasized violent revolution, but how else could you gain your freedom from an occupying army?
But for a modern, United States-centric anti-authoritarian anarchist communist ideology, look up Communalism by Murray Bookchin. Bookchin was critical of Bernie Sanders in vermont as being too centrist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=murray+bookchin