RE: So You're Seeing a Lot of Anarchist Posts, But You're Not Anarchist, WTF is Going On?!
Ancap here (again). With some more nits to pick. I'm taking the trouble to mention these things because I think it's a very important subject (and despite this criticism, I'm glad you're writing about it):
We do not need violence to solve complex social problems.
The solutions to many complex social problems, even under an ancap order, require the enforcement of property rights in order to be solved. The enforcement of property rights requires violence (or the threat thereof). So this claim seems off base as it's currently phrased.
Initiating violence causes far more social problems than it solves.
Violating a person's property rights is not necessarily a violent act - yet the use of violence to prevent that violation would be justified (under ancap assumptions). So the ancap defence agency (for instance) would be technically 'initiating violence' in it's legitimate defence of its customers rights. So again this claim strikes me as misrepresenting ancap, or is at least a very idiosyncratic take on it that (imo) needs some qualification.
Traditionally its the initiation of 'aggression' (not violence) that ancaps often object to. Though I also think this phrase is misleading, since aggression within the context of ancap thought has a significantly different meaning to aggression in a broader context. Much better to talk about what we're actually objecting to: the violation of property rights.
Since I own myself, I own what my body justly acquires.
This sounds confused.
Thanks for reaching out, bitbutter! I agree that my language was shaky in a few instances. I tried my best but for sure there are bits I could have done a better job breaking down. I hope to break down much more in the future, and hopefully better clarify these positions. When I get home tonight I will thoroughly think through your points and will respond on Thursday when I'm off so I can better articulate a response. Take care!
Thanks. No rush!
I just finished my post on property, and I tried to cover a lot of different responses I've seen on my posts and others with similar views. I wanted to also reply here, because I didn't directly address your points in the post. As I'm an amateur writer, it will take a lot of work on my end to improve the precision of my words, and I really thank you for pointing these instances out.
After thinking about your reply some more, you are absolutely right about my wording regarding violence. Violence does have a role to play, even in an ancap society. The key difference of course, is whether or not aggression (for lack of a better word) is involved within the context of a particular instance of violence, as you point out. Initiating violence as means to protect others, their property, or yourself and your property, is not only justified in an ancap society, it's practically essential for the society to function.
"Since I own myself, I own what my body justly acquires"
Reading this back, it does sound incredibly confused. I was trying to connect self-ownership to property rights and I now feel like I failed miserably. I think I need to work on my understanding of that some more, because I clearly did a poor job communicating that connection. Rather than writing on that, I need to learn why I am missing the steps in logic necessary to express that thought.
Here's my post on property:
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@derekareith/on-property
Thanks in advance for checking it out!