Tag Archives | Anarchy

Kevin Carson Named Research Associate at C4SS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Celebrated yet controversial left-libertarian author becomes first C4SS paid staff member.

Studies in Mutualist Political EconomyAUBURN, ALABAMA – November 15, 2008 – Center for a Stateless Society – Kevin Carson, author of Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and a forthcoming major work on anarchist organizational theory has joined the Center for a Stateless Society as the Center’s first paid staff member. In his role as Research Associate beginning January 1st of 2009, Carson will be producing quarterly short research studies for the Center to publish as well as writing news commentary.

C4SS director Brad Spangler said of the move, “We’re developing a new fundraising initiative and early on in that process an anonymous donor stepped up to fund the first quarter of Kevin’s research work and the first month of his news analysis for us. We’re very pleased to announce this, as Carson has been a key figure on the radical end of the libertarian movement. Supporting his work means he’ll be able to do more and better of what he already does amazingly well.”

###

ORGANIZATIONAL SUMMARY
The mission of the Molinari Institute is to promote understanding of the philosophy of Market Anarchism as a sane, consensual alternative to the hypertrophic violence of the State. The Institute takes its name from Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), originator of the theory of Market Anarchism. The Center for a Stateless Society is the Molinari Institute’s media center.

CONTACT
Brad Spangler
Center for a Stateless Society
media@c4ss.org
http://www.c4ss.org


Anarchy on the Airwaves

There's no government like no government Lew Rockwell interviewed me for a couple of brief podcasts this (Thursday) morning; the first one, on anarchism, is up now. (The second one, on the Giant Squid Menace, will be released when the public is ready for it ….)


A Heap of Slavery

Nozick’s Tale of the Slave is online. You should go read it (it’s short) before continuing this post.

 


 

heap of slaves Okay, welcome back. Although the story ends with a question I think it’s clear that the intended answer is “none of them,” and that the sequence of cases is meant to be a kind of argument for that conclusion.

It’s important to see, then, that Nozick’s argument is not merely a Sorites argument.

A Sorites argument has the structure “A isn’t different enough from B to belong to a different category; B isn’t different enough from C to belong to a different category … and so on … so all the instances A through Z must belong to the same category.” Thus a pile of three pebbles isn’t a heap; a pile of four pebbles isn’t different enough from a pile of three pebbles to be categorised differently – so no number of pebbles can ever be large enough to count as a heap.

Although there’s philosophical disagreement as to how to describe exactly what’s gone wrong, that kind of argument is clearly fallacious; so if that’s all that Nozick’s argument were doing it wouldn’t be very impressive. But I think there’s a more charitable way of understanding the argument – namely that in each transition from one case to the next we are meant to recognise that the essence of slavery has not been affected – that slavery isn’t at all about how kindly or cruelly one is treated, for example. In a Sorites, each stage is a bit more heaplike than the next, whether it gets all the way to heaphood or not; but – Nozick wants us to see – each stage of his story is not any more freedomlike.


Class Struggle, Libertarian Style

some people protesting something Here at last (in PDF format – HTML versions to follow in futuro) are two broadly left-libertarian articles I wrote in the 90s that I’ve been promising for some time to post here. (The second one is broken into two parts because I can’t upload files greater than 5 MB.)

1. Immanent Liberalism: The Politics of Mutual Consent

2. Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class, Parts One and Two

[Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy 12.2 (Summer 1995) and 15.1 (Summer 1998), respectively; © 1995 and 1998, Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation; posted by permission of the Foundation.]

The first article critiques mainstream liberalism for privileging indirect and hypothetical forms of consent over direct, actual consent; the second explores the relation between big government and big business and argues that the malign power of the latter depends mostly though not entirely on that of the former. Both articles attempt to overcome the dichotomy between “capitalist” and “socialist” versions of antistatist radicalism.


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes