[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism (Was: Re: Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish)

[Nathan Cravens]

Thanks for sharing this rant, Smári.

Keep in mind that this does not contradict the right to privacy. If you
> are using a room it is not socially accepted that another barge in and
> begin using it; rooms are rival, and rivalry transcends property.
> Dropping the right to property would not mean that people could not have
> private possessions either: people will always respect one another's
> privacy to a sensible degree determined by the social context. Laws are
> only needed to enforce injustice.


Yes, but if people are unable or unwilling to create material autonomy
personally within their communities, they will clamber for their property
and insist that states enforce it. This challenge to anarchy must be better
addressed or rivalry without property or ownership without property cannot
effectively exist.

After doing a search on "ownership without property" and "rivalry without
property" I'm astounded no essay or volume has such a title. And the
immediate results have little to do with this challenge. If there's an essay
addressing how folk can create and how they have before created boundaries
such as "home" without property, I'd like to read it. I've developed this
argument internally, and have expressed these assumptions throughout the
sketches found online, but have yet to illustrate it formally. If you would,
address some readings on that topic, or better, in aggregate at the P2P
Foundation that talks of the abolition of property. This argument must be
better made, with some historical and present day examples, to overcome the
hurdle anarchism has for major acceptance.

Any political view which stems from the suspicion that people will
inherently do ill toward others is only going to reinforce that which it
views as a threat by creating a state or property for defense. This means as
long as the wide spread belief that others will only have a toddler-like
interest in themselves, this will only exaggerate toddler-like attitudes in
others. This is a view held by many political views--including Left and
Right. A majority of folk presently insist we must have a state or property
for the sake of order or protection. Like you've addressed, a tremendous
majority have bought into the Hobbsian fallacy that no one can manage
without a broadcast medium directed from above to instruct and deem what is
appropriate or not. Viewing others as 'others' instead of a 'friend of the
community' - meaning - 'your friend', in addition to the social
infrastructure to reinforce the friendship with those you do not know, can
we ever hope to live in a manner an anarchist's moral superiority might
approve of.

Its important to note that these political ideologies you or anyone might
state is an attempt to create material autonomy and personal kinship in some
way. At least, if that's not the goal of politics, it has already failed.
The reason I've stayed clear of political ideology is that it seems but a
fuzzy reflection of what is happening. Its important to have simple models
to understand the world, but politics as I've encountered it hardly
addresses the issues or how to live well in any distinct way. This may be
because politics in most cases are used to reinforce the state and property
which prevent liberatory knowledge--as this would become a threat to needing
YOU to prowl around like a bloody toddler! Of course, I'm giving to much
credit in asserting this disposition as being self conscious. If those that
behaved in such as way, knew so and its affects, they would be kinder
folk!--?!

Its the approach that matters. I've abandoned reason and approached
'strangers' as (rather than 'like') friends, and I've received the same
approach in kind in most cases. The problem, however, is the pervasive
infrastructure of property and the state to reinforce alienation, ignorance,
and the belief that everyone is stupid, however--you--yes--ONLY YOU--are
special-- superior! Descartes' silliness supposition that "ONLY I EXIST"
persists to this day. This means being kind is difficult to maintain under
our present Industrial conditions. So most folk, even in my small town,
present themselves as unapproachable--austere--at least to those they do not
know. This may be done as a simple protective mechanism, but this method
usually only reinforces alienation and more reason to take defensive action.
This approach is so profoundly destructive, but these assumptions we call
culture are hardly questioned. One reason is because folk are just too busy
to think much at all!

The infrastructures are theoretically more mailable than ever. Transaction
costs for communications are free after that one time purchase many do not
pay at all, or at least, externalise. Tax payers, parent's of students and
students, and businesses--among the other abstract methods to producing and
maintaining stuff--have paid for my privilege to deliver this massage: it is
written from a university using Google, which holds the data using equipment
and energy paid for by business advertisement. So though I do not pay a fee
to use a computer or the web, we still have work to do in order to make--or
because it existed before--re-make community in a way that continues the use
of lovely environments created in air conditioned space and computer
networks--that is to say--continuing present comforts of living.

With your experience Smári, you can share with the world how to make a
better fabrication workshop. I hope to see a document of this sort from you
and your folk within the MIT fab lab network, one that insights the
collaboration and equality we strive for. That document must be a wiki and
its contents must apply and instill a change of behavior in a way that
empowers self and creates or enriches community so to come alive and expand
to reflect how its used in each unique community setting.

How might we create a better world? That's too general in itself, of course,
but we can apply this question to areas of interest and the organizations
that nurture them--like CSAs. So, how might we make a CSA work without money
while maintaining our comforts? The answer to that question I believe is in
'networked computing power'. Now how might we use social networking tools to
create an understandable and replicable collaberative design that represent
physical activities, beginning with the CSA organism itself? This design can
show a CSA's operations elegantly, request needed materials to members known
to have them, and select volunteers to work when they wish to work. It looks
as if Google Wave just might have the potential to aid in this coordination
even moreso than social network sites and wiki pages alone. I've already
described 'waves' beyond the present scope of Google Wave's project. I hope
people can imagine for themselves how wave as collaborative design might
look, beyond the scope of written text and images--rather--in text and
images that represent existing activities, express needs, with a community
network to meet them in freeconomic fashion at best, the food itself
money-free at least. Because the community can see who contributes and who
does not, the free rider problem is alleviated and "competitive
collaboration" is encouraged.

So your interest, Smári, might be in creating a collaborative design for a
commons environment for open source fab labs and the hackerspaces and other
community spaces that build and use them. Once the tool designs are
available and physically established, how might we retrieve these materials
as without monetary metrics, while simultaneously forming a community fund
to decrease costs for individuals while fab functions subsists on producers
that use finance? These are just some of the many questions to ask for the
design to answer. If folk are faced with paying more for less and seeing in
the other: better with less: the feedback loop is on in our favor.

Here are a few collaborative design stubs we can work on:

http://www.appropedia.org/The_Triple_Alliance
http://www.appropedia.org/Open_Systems_Design_for_Peer_Producing_Anything

What do you have in mind? What's known to work or what's working so that we
can apply this in practice?

We need a collaborative design (like Google Wave) and web aggregator (like
Wolfram Alpha) to better address our physical surroundings to make better
use of them.



-- 
Nathan Cravens
Effortless Economy

OPEN SOURCE >> AGGREGATE >> INTEREST >> DISCUSSION >> DESIGN OUTLINE >>
DESIGN >> MATERIALS REQUEST >> FABRICATE PROTOTYPE >> OPTIMIZE




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Forgive the length of this rant, and please refrain from drawing
conclusions before the end of it:



I have frequently been asked what the difference is between
libertarianism and anarchism, in light of the fact that anarchists have
adopted the moral that libertarians have claimed ownership of, that
individual freedom is only limited by the equal freedom of others.
Because of this, both libertarians and anarchists reject the authority
of others, especially the authority of governments.

 “The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or
painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have
never come from centralized government” - Milton Friedman

So what is the difference? The answer is simple. There is only one
difference between anarchism and that which has been called
libertarianism, but that single difference has a number of very
important consequences.

The difference is this: Anarchists do not recognize the concept of property.

Anarchism is first and foremost about freedom, but anarchists do not
accept that their freedom is limited by physical or imaginary property.
Therefore it may be more correct to speak of propertarianism than
liberalism.

The consequences start to become apparent when we appreciate the need to
protect property, since the concept of property cannot be assumed to be
universally accepted, simply by virtue of the existence of anarchists.
The protection of property can be done in a number of ways. The threat
of violence and whichever form of making good on that threat was common,
but another method is the creation of a legislation or agreement which
grants some organization the authority to punish in some way for
infringement of property rights

 “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of
property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against
the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none
at all.” - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)

That propertarians take care of their own property rights by way of
violence or other means is the method many of the more liberal
propertarians have advocated, and the most radical amongst them have
styled themselves anarcho-capitalists. However, the managing of ones own
affairs is an uncommon approach, seeing as how few wish to shit where
they eat, let alone murder where they live.

It is simpler for the conscience to let others take care of the
violence. For this and many other reasons, most propertarians accept
that although an authorative government is a bad thing, it is important
to have laws to maintain property rights.

“Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form
of regulations.” - Milton Friedman

Hence the legislative authority, the first part of government. They
accept that although it goes against their ideals, there must be a
government, but then it shall be a minimal government. The minimal
government should not offer social services, as this would intrude on
market efficiencies. Rather, it should only maintain property rights on
everything, whether it is objects, resources or ideas, and enforce those
rights with punishments of some kind.

Now the propertarians are faced with a liberal dilemma: how do we ensure
fairness? Can we guarantee the liberty of those who infringe on our
property rights? Well, we can't, but we may be able to ensure justice by
way of some arbitrative authority which use the rules to punish
everybody equally.

 “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
- - Anatole France, The Red Lily (1894)

And now that the punishment has been delved out, action must be taken to
enforce it. There must also be some way to bring infringers – criminals
– to justice. Hence the executive authority, with its ability to execute
all of the above, including the criminals if need be.

Let's remember that here we speak only of the most pure form of
libertarianism: in a perfect libert... – sorry, in a perfect
propertarian society the government would neither operate schools nor
hospitals, these would be privately owned. The government would not
provide social benefits or physical security, as all of these functions
would be functions of the market. The only purpose of government is to
enforce property rights. Anything else is simply communism, isn't it?

 “Once wide coercive powers are given to governmental agencies for
particular purposes, such powers cannot be effectively controlled by
democratic assemblies.” - Friedrich von Hayek, The Constitution of
Liberty (1960)

This tiny detail, property, is enough to have the propertarian unravel
all her beliefs and build around herself a powerful system of coercion
which is very easy to use for oligarchical purposes. Taxation, trade
barriers and an unfree market are natural consequences of having such
power hanging over us. But this they accept anyway, because in the world
of the propertarians, property is more important than freedom.

 “Property is theft.” - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property? Or, an
Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government (1840)

Unfortunately, very few are anarchists. Very few people have considered
property in this light and very few have considered the consequences of
eliminating the concept of property. So it may not be unreasonable to
consider some of the implications of doing so.

Imagine owning nothing. This is different from not having anything: when
you sit in a cinema you do not own the seat you are sitting in, but yet
you have it. You are using it and nobody is likely to take it from you.
If anybody were likely to do so it would be the owner of the cinema,
which he can do simply because it is his property.

Laws do differentiate between having and owning. When discussing
resource rights there is an understandable difference between usage
rights and property rights. Usage rights can be temporary or more
permanent, and they don't necessarily need protecting with laws. Few
people would consider using another persons toothbrush or bed without
permission.

What if a house stands vacant? If property exists then the house shall
stand vacant if that is the will of the owner; it is his prerogative as
owner to have the house fall into disrepair. But if no property rights
exist, then it is clear that usage rights do not apply if the house is
not being used, so another could use, lest the resource be squandered.

 “The idea of property, or permanent empire, in those things which ought
to be applied to our personal use, and still more in the produce of our
industry, unavoidably suggests the idea of some species of law or
practice by which it is guaranteed. Without this, property could not
exist.” - William Godwin, An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and
its Influence on Morals and Happiness (1793)

Keep in mind that this does not contradict the right to privacy. If you
are using a room it is not socially accepted that another barge in and
begin using it; rooms are rival, and rivalry transcends property.
Dropping the right to property would not mean that people could not have
private possessions either: people will always respect one another's
privacy to a sensible degree determined by the social context. Laws are
only needed to enforce injustice.

In economics things are considered to be either scarce or abundant,
meaning that with sensible use of these things can be depleted, or else
there will be enough to fulfill any sensible demand for the resource. An
example of a scarce object is the Eiffel tower. There is only one Eiffel
tower, and there never be more than one Eiffel tower, because copies
will only be copies – what makes the Eiffel tower what it is is not its
shape or chemical composition, but rather its cultural significance.
However, there is an abundance of oxygen on Earth, and it would be
unreasonable to intend to deplete it.

On the other hand there are rival goods, and social goods. This refers
to whether or not the usage of one individual of the resource precludes
the use of others of the same resource. A carrot used by one man cannot
be used by another. A chair cannot be used, under normal circumstances,
by more than one at a time. However many can sit in the same cinema, and
many can use the same garden.

(It's worth noting that most economists don't see any difference between
rivalry and scarcity, which may explain some of their mistakes.)

 “Since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor–that means the power and the right to live by
exploiting the works of someone else, the right to exploit the work of
those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced
to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.” - Michael
Bakunin, Selected Writings

Labor is of course on of those things for which there is both
competition and rivalry: each individual only has a fixed number of
hours in the day, and the propertarian model has established a culture
of the owners of the means of production having others work on their
behalf in exchange for a small portion of the produce, and this is
generally not provided in the form of the produce itself, but rather in
the form of a currency.

In light of recent events it is dilligent to ask of currency: is it
scarce? Yes. Is it rival? Yes. Need this be the case?

This last question is important not least because it is so rarely asked.
The monetary system has been constructed around the belief that all
things are scarce and that all things are rival. Because of this, the
monetary system is incapable of properly estimating the value of things
that are abundant or social.

 “Money is a sign of poverty.” - Iain M. Banks, The State of the Art (1989)

The concept of property has been used to justify scarcity for many
centuries. Many centuries ago, in England, many large forests were
considered to be commons – a concept all but exterminated from our
culture – areas which all had equal usage rights to and nobody had
formal property rights for. At some point the lords realized that these
commons were quite valuable, and suddenly realized that which has come
to be known as the tragedy of the commons.

The farmers made use of the forests, cutting small branches off the
trees in the autumn to use as firewood during the winter. This helped
the trees conserve energy during the winter months and start growing
earlier in the spring, and the farmers had enough to keep them warm.

When the lords suddenly realized that this was a scarce resource,
despite this having been the way of life since time immemorial, they had
no other choice than to demand that farmers pay for the right to collect
these branches.

The farmers, of course, had to pay, or else not have firewood. The use
of the forests did not change. Property did not solve a problem that
didn't exist to begin with.

 “No complaint…is more common than that of a scarcity of money.” - Adam
Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)

Money as such are not as large a problem as the way people think about
money. The properties of money come from the needs that property – and
the power structure that maintains property – has created to maintain
scarcity.

In the last century money has been created out of nothing. They are
created when banks lend each other money. This is a type of
centralization, enacted to ensure that only a limited amount of money
exists. A central bank, the regulator of the currency, decides how much
of the currency exists at any given time. Most people do not have
freedom to create money.

The banks that have the right to create money have, just as the owners
who oppress the workers, used their situation to increase their property
value by enacting usury.

 “If he has exacted usury Or taken increase — Shall he then live? He
shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall
surely die; His blood shall be upon him.” - Biblían, Ezekiel 18:13 (King
James version)

Usury, or interest, creates an interesting situation in the monetary
system. There is a constant demand for more money than has been created.
This, along with the centralization of the means of production of money,
create a game, which has a few rules:

Everybody must participate, they cannot quit, they cannot win, they
cannot break even. The goal of the game is to be the last person to
loose. The best strategy? Own more. Avoid bankruptcy. Lie, cheat,
decieve. Drive others to bankruptcy. The worse you are as a person, the
better you are at the game.

So what is the solution? How do we change the game?

Simple: We stop assuming that everything is scarce, and that all things
are rival. This tiny change unravels the current failures in the
monetary system. Then we can build a new monetary system and a new
market economy which does not rely on the concept of property.

First, we stop accepting centralization of the means of production, and
allow everybody to create credit, the value of which is determined by
their merit. By using computers we can make this fast, simple and safe.

 “Abundant cheap credit would drastically alter the balance of power
between capital and labor, and returns on labor would replace returns on
capital as the dominant form of economic activity.” - Kevin Carson,
Mutualist Political Economy

The monetary system would be constructed thus: business transactions
between individuals, where items of value are exchanged – irrespective
of ownership thereof – based on statements of gratitude from the “buyer”
to the “seller”. The computer system can collate the enumerated
gratitude at a moment's notice, throughout the entire society. With
strong encryption these statements will be nigh impossible to forge.
What's more, the contradictory nature of capitalism gets put to good
use. The capitalist model assumes that the only motivation for human
activity is profit, while at the same time neoliberal economics point
out that in a perfect free market competition will eliminate profit.
This would mean, in the case of loans, that due to the availability of
cheap credit, no interest would need to be payed, nor loan fees, any
more than you pay the attendant at the supermarket a handling fee for
accepting your money.

The technological basis for this exists, but they are outside the scope
of this short rant. The point is this:

Property is weaker now than often before, as it goes against the
morality of those who have nothing.

The monetary system is weak now, because it was designed around
assumptions that no longer apply.

Centralization is not the future, scarcity is not the future, property
is not the future. Anarchism is the future: freedom for all to live in
equality and cooperation.



 - Smári
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoxZssACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvHOgwCfUcnDOWWR3IGcyeVqAgBlFwv8
xEEAoJ5JOCz0302irMKP8+dew7Mxtqnt
=cv5/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090611/10bf69b3/attachment-0001.html>