For sure, I'm directing this discussion at those vegans who use an NAP argument for veganism, but have yet to embrace the anarchist philosophy. If one cites the arbitrary whims of the Gods for their moral veganism, what can be said? Their position is not rooted in rationality, but revelation, so it cannot be argued.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:24 amSo to sum up from my perspective I'm a progressive democratic socialist, ideally wanting to get to a radically direct de-centralized council-communist society with a balance of maximum rights and liberties for all. And I just see anarcho-capitalism as a desire for society to be based around a simplistic moral right to property and the NAP.
I would like to clarify my position - I wholly agree that ancaps who propose eliminating government while maintaining the traditional expression of the capitalist model are way off the mark. Although I do recognize private property as an extant and unalienable right (which, if ignored, yields adverse social consequences), I believe it's how we express our ownership that's the relevant factor. This exposes the limitations of the NAP or a strictly law-based conception of morality. It's not enough to cease violating the rights of others; we must recognize that morality is ultimately pointing us toward brotherly Love.
I support a contributionist model (most notably expressed by MIchael Tellinger's "One Small Town" initiative); a variation on the gift economy that marries the best of both capitalism and communism, while circumventing their flaws. I own my body (having the exclusive right to determine how it is used) and thus I own my labor, and what that labor produces. However, there is a moral choice: whether to withhold that labor (and its products) until I am directly compensated, or to give it freely within a community of people who willingly do the same. I do not believe that direct material compensation is the only possible source of inspiration to work. In fact, I think it a far less effective impetus than earnest interest and creative inspiration. To reach a point where a society can run on this latter motivation would require great strides in self-awareness and wisdom, however - far greater than that which leads one to embrace anarchism.
As inconvenient as it may be, we cannot achieve ongoing peace and universal prosperity by denying the free will nature of man, forcing him (by way of violence) to yield the fruit of his labor. He must be made to desire its relinquishment, and to give it freely and willingly of his own accord. Fostering this insight on a broad scale is the work (as difficult as it may seem), and until we accept this charge and get cracking on it, we will continue to endure the cycle of implementing non-solutions that yield small temporary benefits at the expense of growing pain and suffering.
The good news is that it is wholly within our nature to embrace the gift model (we do so within families all the time), and we need only overcome our deceptive conditioning to return to our natural awareness. When we see other as self, viewing all living beings as our extended family, we will accept nothing less than mutual uplift, and will be inspired to action by that highest aspect of our nature.
P.S. To get you accurate specifics about Melanie Joy's argumentation, I will have to review her work (as it's been a while). I will do so presently.