“Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion [political restraint]. It does not mean freedom from the landlord [economic cost], or freedom from the employer [economic cost], or freedom from the laws of nature [economic cost] which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else”.

 

“Conservatism: An Obituary,”

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html#order_5

“If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism”.

These DEFINITIONS are provided as a response to a discussion as it pertains to Youliy Ninov‘s issues WITH “anarcho-capitalism” and the following context.

The CONTEXT (political or economic) AND USAGE (unrestraint or no cost) are provided in square brackets.

What I am going to do is show why I don’t subscribe to the term anarcho capitalism, because I think the term “free, unrestrained marketplace” is less confusing and more descriptive.

Here are excerpts and insights that come from that discussion. Bonus: Dear Reader, at the conclusion, hopefully you will have the tools very few would appear to have for understanding what IS going on in many discussions.

  Profile photo of Youliy Ninov  Youliy Ninov commented on the post,National defense: the hard problem and its true free-market solution, on the site A new type of societal organization

January 17, 2016 , 9:36 pm

In reply to: View

I have been using Ayn Rand’s definition of freedom, i.e. freedom means that no violence has been initiated on you. This definition is universally accepted among minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.

I have no idea what these “free as in no cost” and “free from being restrained by outside forces” mean. Where did you get them from?

Let me repeat my position: A person who acts under the credible threat of initiated violence is not free. But anarcho-capitalism says that one must buy police protection (or alternatively insurance). Since people will buy protection because of the credible threat they will not act freely. A market in which one or more of the sides does not act freely is not a free market. Conclusion: anarcho-capitalism suggests a non-free market solution. What follows is that anarcho-capitalism is not a free-market approach, which flies in the face of what they claim.

In short: good ideas and intentions but wrong implementation.

 

In reply to: View

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 17, 2016 , 8:53 pmReply

Free is being used in two different aspects of its meaning, one is free as in no cost, the other is free from being restrained by outside forces.

An unrestrained market does not mean without cost.

You’re using free with two different meanings.

And not distinguishing between them. Here is what you were saying: a free [unrestrained] market is not free [of cost].

No resource comes without cost.

Freedom [from restraint] isn’t free [from cost].

You are saying the same word and using it 4 different ways. This makes good puns but piss poor logic in serious discussions.

You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free because it’s not free.

1. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from restraint] because it’s not free [from cost].

Or else

2. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from cost] because it’s not free [from restraint].

Or else

3. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from restraint] because it’s not free [from restraint].

Or else

4. You are saying anarcho capitalism is not free [from cost] because it’s not free [from cost].

As any rational person can readily see that the first two are nonsense because they are non sequitors; the last two are self contradictory (A is “NOT” A).

In summary, your position is a deliberate obfuscation of the concepts of free. I don’t subscribe to the term anarcho capitalist because “free, unrestrained marketplace” is less confusing and more descriptive.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device

 

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 18, 2016 , 10:05 pmReply0

Many words in English  have different meanings depending on context in which they are used as I previously pointed out. Free is one such word.

In a political context Ayn Rand’s definition fit’s with meaning of restraint. In an economic context free means without cost as I have previously shown.

Pick one of the four you actually think you mean.

Excerpt from a prior post The English adjective free is commonly used in one of two meanings: “for zero price” (gratis) and “with little or no restriction” (libre). This ambiguity of free can cause issues where the distinction is important

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

 

Profile photo of Youliy Ninov

Youliy NinovJanuary 19, 2016 , 5:47 amReply0

@Mal Roarke
I can not pick because none of the given definitions fits the meaning Ayn Rand ascribes to “freedom”. She did not work with the popular definitions of freedom but created a new one and in this sense it is unique.

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 20, 2016 , 7:33 pmReply0

Re: @Mal Roarke
I can not pick because none of the given definitions fits the meaning Ayn Rand ascribes to “freedom”. She did not work with the popular definitions of freedom but created a new one and in this sense it is unique.

https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem-and-its-true-free-market-solution/#comments

You have cut yourself off with communication with the rest of the English speaking world because you are talking in a language no one else understands.

That is why your postings  are confusing and difficut to comprehend.

Ayn Rand’s definition is equivalent to the restraint definition. And I have already explained the two contexts.

I have pointed out the glaring logical deficiencies (CONTEXT, non sequitors and contradictions) in YOUR arguments.

Now you say you cannot pick one out of the four that explain what you mean in plain English.

All that is required of you is intellectual honesty.

“Intellectual honesty [involves] knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one’s knowledge, and NEVER evading or failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of an ACTIVE mind as a permanent attribute.” Ayn Rand

You continue to be disengenous and now you are attempting to HIDE YOUR Arguments behind Appeals to Authority and fallacies of the stolen concept and package dealing.

http://www.appealtoauthority.info/

“Stolen Concept,” Fallacy of

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 22

As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to know that one is stealing. As they use effects while denying causes, so they use our concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 154

Package-Dealing,” Fallacy of

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

Note and Reference: What is free and freedom?

https://connect.liberty.me/what-is-free-and-freedom/

 

Profile photo of Youliy Ninov

Youliy NinovJanuary 20, 2016 , 8:14 pmReply0

@Mal Roarke

“That is why your postings are confusing and difficult to comprehend.”

One of the reasons why you can not comprehend well my article is that I present new ways of looking at anarchism. New ideas are difficult to grasp at the beginning but once you understand them you start wondering how obvious they have been. In addition people are averse to reading, understanding and accepting views which contradicts theirs.

What you try to achieve is not to answer my questions to you but lead me into some dubious definitions which do not match the ones of Ayn Rand. Your “free from restraint” definition gets closer but it does not define restraint. If you had defined “restraint” as “initiated violence” I would have agreed, but you did not. Would you please, take a look at Ayn Rand’s “The virtue of Selfishness” and quote the definition of freedom from there? By the way, you admit that the definitions you have given are popular ones. Consequently, if Ayn Rand’s definition matches some of them, then she has not discovered a new idea/way of looking at the world. It this your opinion? That her ideas are not original?

Profile photo of Mal Roarke

Mal RoarkeJanuary 20, 2016 , 8:33 pmReply0

Ahhh. NOW I remember where I encountered such postings.

Hermeneutics!

It was the subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

“Murray Rothbard, an economist, had this to say in his 1989 article, The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics:
So why then does the present author … have the temerity to tackle a field as arcane, abstruse, metaphysical, and seemingly unrelated to economics as hermeneutics?

Here my plea is the always legitimate one of self-defense. Discipline after discipline, from literature to political theory to philosophy to history, has been invaded by an arrogant band of hermeneuticians, and now even economics is under assault….

The essential message of deconstructionism and hermeneutics can be variously summed up as nihilism, relativism, and solipsism. That is, either there is no objective truth or, if there is, we can never discover it. With each person being bound to his own subjective views, feelings, history, and so on, there is no method of discovering objective truth.”

THAT is why I felt a profound and fragmenting confusion.

Critics of hermeneutics –such as Jonathan Barnes or David Gordon[1] – are understandably moved to satire, to stating or quoting hermeneutical tracts and then “translating” them into simple English, where invariably they are revealed as either banal or idiotic…

…So why then have not the distinguished critics of hermeneutics played the game on their opponents’ own turf and waded through the mountains and oceans of hogwash, patiently to cite and refute the hermeneuticians point by point and journal article by journal article? To ask that question is virtually to answer it.

In fact, we have asked some of the critics this question, and they immediately responded in a heartfelt manner that they do not propose to dedicate the rest of their lives to wading through this miasma of balderdash. Moreover, to do so, to play by the hermeneuticians’ own rules, would be to grant them too much honor. It would wrongfully imply that they are indeed worthy participants in our conversation. What they deserve instead is scorn and dismissal.

Unfortunately, they do not often receive such treatment in a world in which all too many intellectuals seem to have lost their built-in ability to detect pretentious claptrap.[13]

 

Notes: DISINFORMATION PART 1: HOW TROLLS CONTROL AN INTERNET FORUM

An Insider’s Guide to Online Disinformation

You have probably met these people online. Photo credit: Tristan Schmurr / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

You have probably met these people online. Photo credit: Tristan Schmurr / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

 

DISINFORMATION PART 2: DETAILED TIPS FOR TROLLS

Beware of smiling trolls. Photo credit: Gaertringen / Pixabay (CC0 Public Domain)

Beware of smiling trolls. Photo credit: Gaertringen / Pixabay (CC0 Public Domain)
This is Part 2 of a three-part series

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/02/disinformation-part-2-detailed-tips-for-trolls/

 

DISINFORMATION PART 3: COINTELPRO UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL

 

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/11/disinformation-part-3-cointelpro-up-close-and-personal/