This guy ( left a comment on my YouTube trash blog a while back, and I recently stumbled across his hilarious public flagellation of a shit-for-brains neo-con. Enjoy.
I recently received a private message through YouTube from a user called Individualism101, who purports to be an “Anarcho-capitalist and Agorist working my ass off to save money, to raise capital, to start ventures.” The message contained the bizarre claim that Murray Rothbard’s property ethic (the “homesteading principle”) rests upon the long-disproved labor theory of value. This is a gross misrepresentation of Rothbard’s position, because he never claimed that labor added any intrinsic value to anything (he subscribed to the Austrian school, after all), but labor is rather a mere means of appropriation. Value is always subjective.
I informed Individualism101 of this and rather politely told him I would think about making a video on the matter if I came to any other startling revelations about his idea. That was essentially the end of civil discourse, and I’ll let portions of the “discussion” speak for themselves from here on (Individualism101 in red, me in green).
It seems to me that the concept of transforming the land is simply arbitrary, and can be heavily abused. If I wanted to own the entire moon I could simply let loose some robots up there to put a flashing beacon every 100 meters, thus transforming the entire moon and appropriating it to myself. I don’t think anyone would really consider this to be a valid title of property. By the same argument I could release a bacteria into the atmosphere of mars thus transforming it; this would not constitute valid property title either.
Again, I’m not sure you are accurately representing Rothbard. If you don’t think robots and bacteria create valid property titles, that’s fine — it’s a dubious prospect at best. But I don’t recall any argument leveled by Rothbard or any other Austrian or Chicago school — or ANY Lockean-friendly school — economist that even hints at such. Rothbard would probably argue that releasing bacteria in one region and letting nature take its course doesn’t constitute labor on your part. On the same token, nor does the “currently in use” theory of mutualism purport that someone should be able to seize your farm simply because the crops fail one season. That is also a gross misrepresentation of the position. If I’m in error, please point me to some sources supporting your claims, but as it stands I have no idea from whence you’ve derived these conclusions.
Rather than acknowledging that his position has no relation to Rothbardian or mutualist property theory, he then repeats his argument:
If I am an entrepreneur who hires labour to bulldoze a site and erect a factory it is not my labour, but I am still said to be the owner, because it was my capital which paid the workers and hired the capital equipment.
>
If you replace workers with robots, does the story change? If you replace robots with biological robots, such as genetically engineered bacteria, does the story change?
>
If I invest the capital to develop a bacteria to terraform mars, and succeed, am I now in ownership of the atmosphere of mars?
>
Surely you concede that the criteria of basic transformation is too open ended to constitute a valid principle of first ownership — or is it? And from the mutualist standpoint a criteria of current use is again too open ended.
Neither system is too “open ended” if you actually understand what they entail and do not entail. Rothbard specifically argued against atmosphere ownership, which you apparently are not even aware of. As for dispatching your biological or mechanical minions, have at it, but don’t expect anyone to recognize your ownership simply because you’ve painted every other tree or released a microbe into the air. What you describe Rothbard would label feudalism (and Kevin Carson more accurately labels “bastard feudalism), which he (Rothbard) also opposed vociferously.
>
Carson outlines the modern Mutualist position in “Mutualist Political Economy,” and once again I have never gleaned anything even approaching what you have apparently concluded from his writings. Have you read any of his material at all, for that matter?
>
Directly related, there is quite a discussion in a Stephan Kinsella blog post at mises.org on this very issue — “absentee landlordship” specifically in Carson’s context — and it includes some very interesting points and counter-points. If you’re looking to put mutualist property theory through the ringer, that’s the place to start rather than making up bizarre ideas that don’t even reflect what the theory actually is, like “someone can steal my farm if the crops fail.” That’s erecting a straw-man and attacking it with a machine-gun, and I’m, frankly, bewildered that you even think you’re attacking valid ideas here. To make a comparison, what you’ve done is like someone analyzing the libertarian opposition to the welfare state by attacking libertarians for wanting to starve poor children. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Again, unable to make a salient point, he repeats his argument (noticing a pattern yet?):
I’m not deliberately misrepresenting Rothbard or Carson (although, as you point out, I have not read the latter). I am aware Rothbard argued against atmosphere ownership but I am yet to see any principle by which original ownership can be strictly defined, as to leave no doubt in the minds of onlookers.
>
Further, I was not attempting to construct a strawman with respect to mutualist property title; I was just arguing that it would lead to injustice if, again, no strict definition of current ownership were established. Perhaps there exists such a strict definition, if so I am ignorant of it. Please reply with a link to it if you know of one.
>
As Rothbard himself points out, feudalism would essentially be equivalent to a libertarian society if the lords respected the negative liberty of their renters and if the land was homesteaded through valid original ownership by the lords. And this is really what confuses and irritates me.
>
Because we now have technology to amplify the power we (as individuals) wield, a criteria based on homesteading, or first transformation, or first use, becomes little harder to satisfy than planting a flag and just declaring the land yours…
If you can’t see this, then what is your suggestion? If you think labor transformation or own-through-use concepts are arbitrary, open-ended or whatever, what would you consider NOT open-ended and arbitrary? Something more along the lines of Max Stirner?
>
- “Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for ‘one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right’”
>
- “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.”
>
- “What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.”
>
That constitutes a clearly delineated account of property yet in my estimation is no more or less arbitrary than declaring property a result of labor or use. It’s also incredibly open-ended, because someone can just, to borrow your example, conquer an entire planet. Seriously, I don’t know what you’re looking for. Everything, in the end, is arbitrary, even if you write detailed laws and enforce them universally and fairly. Even the libertarian non-aggression axiom is ARBITRARY. I consider it ESSENTIAL, mind you, in order for any flavor of my political philosophy to be viable, but it is no less arbitrary.
Cue the scene where I am accused of being negative, defensive, rude, etc….
“Wow you give me a pretty negative vibe, as though I am an enemy of liberty or something”
“…the original transformation criteria of original ownership becomes no harder to satisfy than parking your space-yaught in orbit and claiming mars for your own.”
And as I have explained to you repeatedly, this does not satisfy any criteria of original ownership that I’m familiar with. If I need to say it in another language, let me know and I’ll try to accommodate.
“…but the burden of proof isn’t on me.”
I would say that it is, because you have yet to demonstrate that you’re even accurately representing the ideas you’re attempting to attack.
“There is no need to be rude.”
Don’t confuse rude with honest. But if you’re really getting a “negative vibe,” maybe you should just go talk to someone who agrees with you.
Regrettably, I cannot quote directly from his last message, because it has mysteriously vanished from my inbox. I don’t know if I deleted it accidentally or if YouTube is behaving oddly again, as it often does. At any rate, I’ll summarize his final points from memory.
- I am intellectually dishonest for calling him wrong without explaining why he is wrong.
- I am an ass.
- He hopes I will never be a leader within the libertarian movement.
- I can go fuck myself.
I attempted to respond to him one last time, but apparently he has blocked me from communicating with him (which is why his crap is now posted here). Had I been addressing him with unmitigated belligerence, I suppose that’s a fair reaction, but in light of his ideas having no merit whatsoever, he strikes me as petty, childish, and not fundamentally different from a religious zealot who simply cannot face being wrong. In fact, in the reply I typed before realizing I was blocked, I told him I could not tell any difference between his behavior and that of a creationist who insists I believe the “universe came from nothing” and “humans evolved from monkeys,” no matter what I tell him to the contrary. It’s a wonder my patience lasted as long as it did.
Anyway, addressing his final bullets:
- I did explain why he was wrong. His initial premise was incorrect, because Rothbard’s property theory relies on labor as a means of appropriation, not a means of conferring value, as value is subjective. Also, in terms of claiming moons and planets, I suggested that would fall under what Rothbard terms “feudalism,” which he fervently opposed. Individualism101 even provided a possible answer to himself, whereby even if we accept the flawed interpretation of homesteading, a “landlord” can either not violate libertarian principles when dealing with tenants or be willing to sell his land freehold to new residents. At any rate, the “whys” regarding my opposition to Individualism101’s claims were clearly expressed, whether he would acknowledge them or not.
- I never claimed I wasn’t an ass, though I think my discourse in this matter was largely civil until it reached “creation vs. evolution” status.
- Don’t worry, as I have no aspirations to lead anyone. I’m asocial and hate crowds. That said, I hope anyone who does fancy himself a leader has a much clearer understanding of libertarian principles than one Individualism101.
- He concluded his message by telling me to go fuck myself. Need I say more?
I think we’re done here.
I’ve always been confused by the label “militant atheist” or “militant atheism.” It’s a label often applied by the religious, particularly Christians, whenever they perceive any manner of intolerance for their faith-based view of the world. In recent years, there has admittedly been an increase in the aggressiveness of some atheists, partly due to the Internet and the resulting enhanced ability of the godless minority to communicate and organize. But this seems a poor excuse for calling atheists “militant,” since Christians have been highly organized and vocal for most of their history, especially within the evangelical movement in the United States over the last century.
A common charge from some Christians is that certain historical figures were atheists and also happened to be tyrants and mass murderers. Stalin and Mao are oft-cited examples. Since atheism is a “religion” unto itself, as is often claimed, the history of atheism is just as tainted and, indeed, bloodier than the history of Christianity. Of course, atheism, properly understood, is a mere disbelief in deities, not a religion or ideology that intrinsically entails any philosophy, per se. Surely, it isn’t rational to make assumptions about the nature or views of a man who denies or disbelieves in the existence of Zeus. The assertion that a lack of belief in deities is fundamental — or even causal — to a demented philosophy makes about as much sense as asserting that a belief in God is fundamental or causal to the same. Further, it is theists who, despite interpreting their sacred literature in a variety of ways, at least draw from the same source. There are no atheist scriptures to which one might dogmatically adhere or after which he might model his life.
So, similar to passion and organization, the atheism of notable tyrants seems a weak means of linking a lack of belief in gods to the “militant” qualifier.
All that said, perhaps an examination of the term “militant” is in order. Some common definitions from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary are as follows:
1. “…vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause.” (Random House Unabridged)
2. “…engaged in warfare; fighting.” (Random House Unabridged)
3. “Fighting or warring.” (American Heritage)
4. “Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause….” (American Heritage)
5. “…wishing to take, or taking, strong or violent action.” (Kernerman English Multilingual)
Definition number one certainly applies to some atheists, though how one determines what is “vigorously active and aggressive” is up in the air, as is defining what constitutes a “cause.” Using this definition, it becomes obvious that almost anyone who ardently pursues anything is militant, yet I wonder why the word is not applied more liberally.
Perhaps the reluctance to throw the term around wantonly has something to do with its negative connotation. I’ve never heard a Christian proudly proclaim his favorite evangelist to be respectably militant, nor is Ghandi widely known as a militant peace activist. Are scientists militant in the pursuit of knowledge? Richard Dawkins writes books and harshly denounces religion. If he is militant, what about Christian apologist Lee Strobel? Creationist Michael Behe? Author C.S. Lewis?
As you can see, “vigorously active and aggressive” isn’t necessarily the whole story, and the other definitions predictably paint a more comprehensive portrait of the word “militant.” Accordingly, it makes very little sense to describe prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Meyers, Sam Harris and others as militant simply because they disagree with a particular world-view. Even if they are militant, this label necessarily includes Christianity’s own heroes, which presents the question of why some theists are so quick to apply it.
So having established that aggressive atheism and atheists who are militant by no means inherently equate to militant atheism, the question is raised: Does militant atheism even exist? Clearly, adherents of various faiths have been persecuted and slaughtered over the centuries, by both adherents to other faiths and those with no religious faith at all. Of course, as explained earlier, atheism entails no ideological or philosophical concepts it and of itself, so it is obvious that those who militantly oppose religion are militant for reasons other than atheism.
The closest thing I can find to “militant atheism” is antitheism, which Wikipedia describes as an “active opposition to theism” that “may be adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is destructive.” Still, even this label is convoluted, as anyone can see by just browsing through the article. Timeless attempts by theists to equate atheism to religion — using phrases like “atheistic evangelism” and “opposition to God” (which is nonsense, because atheists disbelieve in all gods) — make any objective definition of the concept all but impossible.
In my view, applying a label like “militant atheism” cheapens the term “militant” in a rather disgusting fashion, much the same way in which some socialists cheapen the horrors of chattel slavery by associating it with their flawed idea of so-called “wage slavery.” Only behaviors, not mere ideas, can be militant, and assigning a word that denotes coercion and violence to an idea simply because one disagrees with or does not understand it reeks of arbitrariness, dishonesty and ignorance. At the very least, I would like to see more theists who are willing to accept the militancy of their own if they are going to hurl the “militant” qualifier at active, outspoken atheists. However, given that such assignments are pejorative and consequently meaningless, a much more effective strategy for facilitating rational discussion and the pursuit of truth seems to be reserving the “militant” label for actual militants.
That said, this requires that rational discussion and the pursuit of truth be mutually accepted standards.