My comments on: Anarchist and Socialist Semantics and Historicity (Or, Why Does Stephan Kinsella Act As If Individualist Anarchism Never Existed? Redux)

Here:

Stephan Kinsella said…

“Brainpolice,” I don’t “act as if individualist anarchism never existed.” In act I am an individualist anarchist. I, however, an a libertarian, and do not accept the various unlibertarian views held by many of the progenitors of and influences on our modern libertarian view, such as the silly economic and land and tax views of the Georgists and their ilk. Rothbard was right: Smith’s labor theory of value was a crucial mistake that lead to flawed Marxoid social analysis and a host of bizarre notions about property and economics still propounded today by the soi-disant allies of libertarianism. We standard libertarians have enough work to do exploring, extending, solidifying, applying, and clarifying our own edifice of thought. If someone can gain a few nuggets of insight picked out of the musty volumes of leftist thinkers’ thought, more power to them. So far the main thing I’ve seen of value come out of this is a welcome caution to over-exuberant, “vulgar” praise of “capitalist” institutions and practices that might be more influenced by state policy that is initially realized by some of the reflexive supporters of the present order. Yet I see no reason to accept the barnacles that encrust these reasonable insights, e.g. localism; tolerance for vandarchism; distaste for the division of labor, industrialism, corporations, “bossism,” “pushing people around,” “exploitation,” “wage slavery,” “alienation” from one’s labor; occupancy; single-tax and associated crankish economic views; obsession with “wildcat unionism,” and so on.

June 25, 2009 10:36 PM

Kregus said…

Stephan Kinsella, I think that you are dogmatic anarcho-capitalist with fetish around the hierarchical systems. You are anable to see the historical perspective of what is called “anarchism”. How for example “cost the limit of price” (PRESCRIPTIVE labor theory of value) can be wrong viewing it from the descriptive Austrian point? Almost all libertarianism is associated with socialism (workers ownership of the means of production). WTF are you talking about? “Unlibertarian” libertarian socialism? Forget about it.

We have explained to you this long ago.

“I am an individualist anarchist”

Of course not, you are anarcho-capitalist. Kevin Carson is an example of individualist anarchism. Even Sponner believed in mutualist bank system and favored self-employment as a solution to the labor problem.

Offtopic, I suggest to watch this interesting video to brainpolice:

When Is A Monopoly Too Big?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5tVFrMlSZw&feature=channel_page

June 28, 2009 6:45 AM

Stephan Kinsella said…

“Kregus” wrote, in response to my comment “I am an individualist anarchist””

“Of course not, you are anarcho-capitalist. Kevin Carson is an example of individualist anarchism. Even Sponner believed in mutualist bank system and favored self-employment as a solution to the labor problem.”

Wow. I have to hope the regular left-libertarians are not happy about having Kregus’s ilk associated with them. One cannot be “individualist” if one is an anarcho-libertarian? If one does nnot “believe in” the “mutualist bank system” … What? If one does not “favor” “self-employment as a solution to the labor problem”…? Wha? What “labor problem”? There is no “labor problem.” How loony and ridiculous.

June 28, 2009 10:36 AM

Moreover, the fact that Spooner believed in the “mutualist banking system” is not very persuasive–after all he was crankish on land and weak on economics (see Rothbard’s The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View) and bad on IP.