Yeah, it's from the Bible. Yeah, Paul was talking about something completely different from political programs. It still seems to fit. There are people who seek to destroy the existing system first, in order that there will be no alternative but to build a replacement. They thereby show that they seriously doubt their ability to persuade people that their alternative is better. (They also assume that their alternative is the only alternative, or at least is the one that will be chosen. They are, I think, over-optimistic in doing so.)
If the state actually did help the less privileged, that would be one thing. But the state programs that claim to help the less privileged, mostly don't. And even when they do, the hoops the less privileged have to jump through to get the help are ridiculous. My wife and I have a friend who is on food stamps; he's disabled and unable to work, has been for years. Every year when his food stamps come up for renewal, even though not a single thing has changed with his situation, the county finds a way to screw it up and we have to call them and get it straightened out. Imagine what happens to people who don't have friends that can help them navigate the system.
The root of the problem is not that helping the less privileged is a bad thing; it's that the state is the worst possible tool for the job.
> I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them.
We do have something to replace them: private charity. Anyone can found a nonprofit charity organization to help the less privileged. And they would do a much better job of it than the state does. The fact that the state is doing it at all hurts the actual ability to help people, because the people who would actually do a good job at it are thinking that the state is already taking care of it so they don't have to. Which means that there are actually more people who need help that are not getting it, than there would be if the state were simply out of the business altogether and everybody knew that it was up to them, as private individuals and private charities, to do it.
Also, "we have an idea that could in theory replace them" is not the same as "we have the structures in place and shown capable to replace them".
I would want to see a lot of data to back this up--and it would have to be accurate data, including accurate data on how often the state makes things worse instead of actually helping. I don't have such accurate data on a global scale, and I don't think you do either. The state does not even measure how much harm its employees do; it has no incentive to do so.
> "we have an idea that could in theory replace them" is not the same as "we have the structures in place and shown capable to replace them".
"Replace" assumes that the current structures are providing a net benefit. If they're actually a net cost--if they do more harm than good, all things considered, which I suspect is true for the state if we could actually get accurate data on all the harm as well as all the good--then replacing them with nothing whatever would still be a net gain. Of course replacing them with something that actually did the job the state is supposed to do would be better still, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
Could you give an example of what you mean by this?
However they have such different terms for things they typically get really upset at each other when talking. For example they use the term “capitalism” very differently. Socialist anarchists are against “capitalism” for a lot of reasons, but one of them is that is enables cronyism. However libertarians are pro “capitalism” and yet very against cronyism. So both groups are strongly against cronyism, but they can’t seem to get along well enough to fight cronyism together.
Libertarians advocate for “capitalism” which they see as markets unimpeded by the state. Anarchists also don’t want the state interfering in their exchanges. They may place rules on their exchanges but this would be on a voluntary basis, so they could seemingly coexist with libertarians who just want to rely on markets.
Both sides also seem to be against intellectual property restrictions. Another place to work together.
In my personal vision, an anarchist communist society could, and I think should, still take advantage of markets for certain situations. I think it makes sense for individuals to be protected by communal structures, but those communes might use markets to distribute goods in addition to politically coordinated exchanges.
Libertarians don’t want much of the above, but if it’s truly voluntary they’re not against it either. Though they are super touchy when you talk to them about this and they don’t accept any of it until they understand you really want it to be voluntary.
My libertarian friend also really surprises me sometimes. He said recently the state should release control of all hospitals to the hospital workers who have been running them. Like they did some kind of homesteading so they should be the ones to own the hospital. Well that sounds a lot like a worker owned collective!
Maybe start here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2WH88wmWc
If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I'd recommend doing more research before making sweeping generalizations about "anarchists", "libertarians", "capitalism", etc.
I think you’re missing my point. I think left libertarians and socialist anarchists could be allies. They seem to want almost the same thing. They just can’t stand talking to each other because they use terms that make the other extremely skeptical. It’s difficult for me to use precise language when trying to bring two groups together who use that language very differently. So I know I’m speaking in broad terms. Certainly anarchist and libertarian are very broad and not all of them think alike.
But I think people who like the idea of anarchist socialism might actually like what certain left libertarians have to say. That is my point.
Don’t take my word for it. Check out Roderick Long and you tell me if he makes sense to you.
What gives you the impression that these are different groups that "could be allies" but "can't stand talking to each other"? Every resource I can find seems to say that social anarchism is a subset of left libertarianism.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#/media/Fil...
Interestingly I've learned that there is a big difference between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". I think the left libertarians and the socialist anarchists could actually be allies if they could get past all their language differences and knee jerk reactions. My roommate is a knowledgeable left libertarian and it's amazing how similar our end goals are but how different our language and conceptual frameworks for getting there can sometimes be.