[p2p-research] The difference between anarchism and libertarianism

[Ryan Lanham]

2009/6/19 Smári McCarthy <smari at anarchism.is>
As Eben Moglen said anecdotally during a
talk yesterday at the University of Iceland: "Under capitalism, man
exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around." (there's a
partial audio recording at http://notendur.hi.is/~annaj/audio/ btw)


...Love it.

Ryan Lanham
"You'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone"



2009/6/19 Smári McCarthy <smari at anarchism.is>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>  Sorry for the late reply.
>
> Stefan Merten wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I agree with your description. But I expected that you describe an
> > anarchist alternative to libertarians instead of changing to their
> > side.
>
> The anarchist side is thoroughly documented from the angle of property
> rights, whereas the libertarian stance takes property mostly as a given
> and indulges itself only in discussion about the relative merits of
> various forms of property. Thus my elaboration in that direction rather
> than the other.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Well, I'd go one step further: Money *encodes* scarcity (where
> > scarcity means a man-made limitation). If you want to end up at
> > commons (i.e. absense of scarcity) you have simply no more use for
> > money.
>
> Your mistake here is that you confuse commons with abundance, which is
> something I previously thought not to be possible, but it is exactly for
> this reason that I urge people to consider the difference between the
> abundance/scarcity axis and the rivalry/sociality axis.
>
> Many commons are scarce, in the sense that with sensible use they may
> yet be depleted. Further, a multitude of things are abundant but do not
> exist in the commons, for example ideas, which have been appropriated
> and commoditised by them who we now call owners.
>
> >> Because of this, the
> >> monetary system is incapable of properly estimating the value of things
> >> that are abundant or social.
> >
> > Yes. If it encodes scarcity it can not encode non-scarcity.
>
> Again, and this has been discussed before at length and was very aptly
> summarized by Kevin Carson recently on the p2p foundation blog, there
> exist many forms of money that do not assume scarcity. Mutual credit is
> a very fine example.
>
> The assumption of scarcity is built into our current monetary system.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Well, the "tragedy" of the commons is of course capitalist propaganda.
> > This is pretty obvious. It was not a tragedy but the appropriation at
> > the beginning of an era.
>
> I like the way you put this. It's not entirely accurate, historically,
> but I agree that the tragedy of the commons was capitalist propaganda.
> The concept is itself pure bullshit, born out of rampant unchecked
> Malthusianism.
>
> >> Usury, or interest, creates an interesting situation in the monetary
> >> system.
> >
> > Here your analysis starts to get wrong. Interest does not create a
> > situation in the monetary system but is created by a monetary system.
>
> On the contrary. As Michel pointed out in his previous reply to this,
> usury is by no means the norm. See my post to the Oekonux mailing list
> on the 6. may 2009 for a theological overview of usury and its many bans
> through time. See also how interest is not assumed in many currencies,
> specifically LETS systems and many other alternative currencies. (In
> fact, LETS systems have the absence of usury as a rule.
>
> What you probably mean is that usury comes into effect in monetary
> systems because money lenders want increase or return on their loans,
> and the competition isn't good enough to eliminate it. But the truth is
> that state and/or central bank interference with the monetary system and
> their monopoly over given monetary systems forces banks and other
> lenders to charge increase.
>
> The means of production of money are in the hands of centralized
> monopolies. If money could be produced by all, scarcity would not be
> assumed, and market dynamics would make usury unreasonable.
>
> >> Simple: We stop assuming that everything is scarce, and that all things
> >> are rival.
> >
> > But then: What do we need money for at all?
>
> Because money does not encode scarcity, it encodes trust, and by way of
> that, it encodes merit.
>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > And merit is of course scarce. So you are introducing a new scarcity
> > in the attempt to remove scarcity. This makes no sense. But it
> > reflects how much your thinking is still bound to a scarcity based
> > system. I wholeheartedly suggest that you just look at peer
> > production. Scarcity is no part of peer production. And thus money is
> > not missing.
>
> Merit is not scarce. It is finite, meaning that there is a limited
> amount of it available, but it is not scarce in the sense that
> reasonable use of merit will not deplete it. Further, merit is not
> rival, so many people can make use of the same merit simultaneously
> without causing deadlocks. Because of this, the dynamics of merit are
> very much different from the dynamics of currencies defined completely
> by central bank estimates of monetary value, or by market adaptations to
> that value system.
>
> >
> >> By using computers we can make this fast, simple and safe.
> >
> > By using computers you move the authorities into the machine. Code is
> > law - already forgotten? You can not remove authorities by moving them
> > into a computer program.
>
> I am aware with Lawrence Lessig's statement to that affect. Are you
> familiar with my reversal of it?
>
>    Law is code
>
> Seen from a software engineering perspective, the legal system is little
> more than a piece of software that defines rules and heuristics that
> determine the acceptable operational parameters of society. It is
> self-modifying code in that it adapts on runtime to the output of the
> society.
>
> We're not removing authority by putting it into a computer program.
> Rather, we're acknowledging the existence of authority and the
> structures that enforce it, and using computer technology as a modest
> means of leveling out the playing field by using advanced mathematics to
> give everybody the means of production of money. I personally wish I
> could see an easy way to do it without computers, but unless we can
> teach everybody to calculate RSA in their head, I can't.
>
> >>  œôòüAbundant 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.œôòý - Kevin Carson,
> >> Mutualist Political Economy
> >
> > What I never understood: When I can create as much money as I want -
> > which above is already impossible by the merit thing - for what do I
> > need money then at all?
> >
> > Money is either scarce or it makes no sense. It follows that if you
> > want to overcome scarcity money makes no sense.
>
> Again, wrong. Money encodes value, trust or merit. When I pay you for a
> good, you are accepting that there is a high chance that you will be
> able to use that payment's implicit trust statement to procure other
> goods. This has NOTHING to do with scarcity.
>
> >
> >> With
> >> strong encryption these statements will be nigh impossible to forge.
> >
> > You are moving the policemen into the computer. Probably you also like
> > DRM methods - they are doing the same.
>
> How the hell do you manage to equate strong encryption with DRM? That is
> the most absurd thing I have heard, and it's also borderline offensive.
>
> First off, strong encryption eliminates the need for "policemen" by
> providing everybody with a method of ensuring their privacy and proving
> their identity. Notice how this e-mail will be digitally signed with my
> PGP key when I send it; this is a mathematically strong way of helping
> you be able to trust that the message is from me. There is no policing
> involved, just a piece of smart mathematics coupled up with a p2p trust
> model.
>
> DRM methods on the other hand aim to prevent the copying or otherwise
> realistic use of digital information, which is both impossible and
> stupid. This has nothing to do with trust models: with DRM you have to
> supply the user of the DRMed technology with both the product and the
> key to unlock it, and then somehow make it impossible to use the key
> outside of a certain context, which of course is impossible to enforce.
>
> >> Property is weaker now than often before, as it goes against the
> >> morality of those who have nothing.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but morality was always the same largely. So there is no
> > change here.
>
> I agree, but there are way more people who have nothing now than there
> were a couple of years ago.
>
> >> The monetary system is weak now, because it was designed around
> >> assumptions that no longer apply.
> >
> > Well, when I look at the rate with which monetary systems are proposed
> > I can not really see that the monetary system is weak. In the
> > contrary: At the point in history where money really becomes
> > superfluos people are so shocked by this vision that they do
> > *everything* to save their old certainties. Sorry, but this is too
> > conservative for me.
>
> Please understand that "monetary systems" - plural, no article - is
> different from "the monetary system" - singular, definite article.
>
> When we say "the monetary system" we are referring to the monetary
> system that is currently being used throughout the world, which is a
> fiat credit model with centralized credit authority, explicit usury and
> implicit geographical bindings (in some cases more explicit than others).
>
> >> Anarchism is the future: freedom for all to live in
> >> equality and cooperation.
> >
> > No. Anarchism is a concept related to capitalism. For instance
> > equality is a fundamental value in capitalist societies. Equality is a
> > concept to deal with scarcity and limitations. The future is peer
> > production. Equality will simply be no topic any more in peer
> > production.
>
> Anarchism is related to capitalism in the way a kiwi is related to a
> range rover. Sure, they're both political models, but that's where the
> similarity ends.
>
> Capitalism relies on property, and property generates inequality, as
> does communism - with most implementations of communism being nothing
> more than state capitalism. As Eben Moglen said anecdotally during a
> talk yesterday at the University of Iceland: "Under capitalism, man
> exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around." (there's a
> partial audio recording at http://notendur.hi.is/~annaj/audio/ btw)
>
> Further, you claimed to be familiar with anarchism. Why then do you not
> understand that anarchism is the political model for peer production,
> and what we're dealing with is merely a technological phenotype?
>
> > I can only appeal to all of you that you open your eyes and really
> > *watch* these things which happen all around us. And open you mind and
> > overcome this outdated thinking in money / scarcity categories.
>
> "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out." -- Tim Minchin.
>
> We're watching. Trust me, we are.
>
>  - Smári
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAko74z0ACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvGgzgCgmLFVq1dVKn+j63qvWA8IKvM9
> aI0AoNjmk2NmScrrzLIPWxGu9NJrMfbR
> =dU/r
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090619/25ca7308/attachment-0001.html>