"I demand freedom for both sexes. . ." - Emma Goldman (Anarcha-Feminist)

Libertarian_Atheist · 2012-04-30T08:13:37+00:00

Whole quote: "I demand the independence of woman, her right to support herself; to live for herself; to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she...

[–]rightsbot[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Politicians will never be held accountable.

Police, fire protection, and defense can be provided without the state. More cheaply, more efficiently, more humanely, and with accountability with market forces.

The state benefits the wealthy more than anyone else. If it did not, it would soon change, either those with wealth would lose it to those with the power quickly or those with wealth would take the power. Every time the Federal Reserve inflates prices, it benefits the biggest debtors the most, it discourages savings, and stock values of the largest corporations go up.

Government creates monstrous monopolies and destroys competition. It devalues labor, destroys families, and promotes criminality. Corporate personhood and regulations destroy opportunity and impoverish the common person.

I'm what is known as a "market/individualist" anarchist btw. Think of it as dauntless Jeffersonianism.

Thoreau is often quoted but they tend to leave out the last part:

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

A state is required for any real accountability. If the police, firefighters, and military are private then you create a system where money is power and power by force. Those wealthy few would still control the police but even more so without some other force like a government watching over it. The problem with the current government is too much money going into politicians pockets; bribes, jobs offers, connections, and lobbying. We've changed the government from for the people to bought by the few. Limiting the free market business and not government (the best politicians money can buy) we would have a much better system. The free market being used toward the government is our major problem at the moment. The free market is not the best solution for all problems. And I agree that the current government is for the rich and special interests that's why money needs to be removed from the system and instead of politicians we need civil servants (individuals there to represent the people).

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, you should probably do some reading on my views because free markets do not lead to monopolies and mass accumulation of wealth. This is a myth spread by statist socialists to convince people they need government.

For instance, a monopoly has never formed without the aid of government.

In a free market, the largest class becomes the middle class. Those wealthiest in a free market are always at risk of losing that wealth, they would rather not incur the wrath of the middle class masses.

Without government the wealthiest must protect their own wealth, the more wealth the more it costs to maintain it.

This is a great primer to explain how a voluntary and free society would work, it is 100% free to download:

http://mises.org/document/3128/Free-Market-Economics-A-Basic-Reader

BTW, the author is female and she is brilliant. I think this book is probably about as perfect as it can get for explaining my philosophy.

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrustMeIDoMath 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I always find this argument tedious every time I see or hear it. Why? Because if market anarchism were so good for the superwealthy, why have almost none of them taken it up?

But let's get down to basic logic. If a large monopoly / oligopoly has never existed without government help then we can deduce that it is unlikely without government help.

Monopolies and oligopolies destroy competition for labor, thereby lowering the average wage in an industry.

So how does this work? A history lesson perhaps... When the FDA was written into law, it was celebrated by the largest agro corps, why? Because it limited future competition by increasing the cost of market entry, this was the final nail in the coffin of the lifestyle of the family farmer. With less competition, the agro corps could practically dictate prices to farmers and then drive them out of business.

You want some more examples? Because history is brimming with them, hell even the American Revolution was partly in reaction to the huge monopolist corporations that formed around the British Empire. I don't want to waste your time though if you don't want to read about it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would very much like to hear your perspective. I have a strong belief in Libertarianism, but social protections need to be put in place. As little faith I have in people to do the "right thing", Corporations can be expected to have a very strict objectivity based outlook where their rational self interest trumps all. That would be fine from an individual standpoint, but it could be devastating institutionally. An example would be my belief that there is nothing wrong with forcing emergency rooms to stabilize a critical emergency and to send a bill. If it were a pay-first policy, the hospitals would benefit because no one would welch, but a person may be unconscious or in some other incapacity and unable to verify he can in fact afford treatment. Or it may take longer to liquefy enough assets than the hospital is willing to give him. It is logical from a business standpoint but unconscionable from a social one.

I did not necessarily mean monopolies but can you describe what you mean by "Government help"? All prominent industry leaders work closely with their governments, because that is the state of things, you cannot say it would work different in a vacuum just because no vacuums exist to disprove you. How would DeBeers and their entirely artificial market have functioned differently without working in a Government (I do not consider the dirty Soviet Diamonds to have been a threat to the market)?

What would prevent an unscrupulous moneylender with enough resources to manipulate a popular currency to change the valuations of his contracts? Depending on which direction he makes the change, he could either be paid much over the worth, or nullify savings to force default so he could foreclose. Given enough planned strategic shocks colluded upon by the entire industry, the middle landowning class could well be turned into a "serfdom" of renters with no protections because they do not own.

Finally, what is to prevent any of these 6 examples where artificial controls are placed on the natural forces which you rely on to be infallible?

I think anarchists overestimate the power they will have and underestimate the wealthy. The people own basically nothing when it comes to resources, and they need protections from those who do.

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, corporations are empowered agents of a state, they represent the worst kind of market interference. They are not people and therefore should have no rights. In a free market, there are no corporations, just companies of people working together.

The solution to healthcare is to lift the regulations that limit the building of hospitals and medical schools. In the US, med schools turn away tens of thousands of perfectly qualified medical students every year. There is demand but the market is forced not to supply for that demand due to government interference. Patents on medical technology also raise the cost of medical care. One of the hallmarks of market anarchism is the disdain for intellectual property, most especially patents. How can you own an idea?

Personally, when it comes to social programs, I believe, unlike some others, they should be done away with from disuse.

Let me elaborate, the government bends over backwards in benefitting the largest corporations and then people argue for more regulations not realizing that regulations help the biggest companies the most. Meanwhile these huge corps put billions away into tax haven "foundations" which fund anti-free market education and universities brimming with closed market "court intellectuals." They do this because government interference is good for them. And every once in awhile a regulation comes along that negatively impacts them and they then put in a Republican (Bush) to do away with just those.

Your contention that there would be a vacuum without government is predicated upon the presumption that we need government. It does not work as a valid argument because it is circular. The hidden predication is not that there is a need for government but that the natural order is for a small number to be on top. This is true if force is used which is why the right to self-defense (the basis of "gun rights") is so important. It is also why societal problems are not merely in the infrastructure but also in cultural miasma. I will not focus on cultural issues but Stephen Molyneux has some great books on the Free Domain Radio website that work through those issues very thoroughly and I cannot recommend them enough. If you do not have the time, he also has a lot of videos that cover a range of topics.

Monopolies require force to be built and maintained, as an organization grows, it naturally becomes less efficient and more top heavy. They are not as agile or innovative. Promotions become based more upon appearances and school credentials than effort, energy, or ability. To make up for this, they have to spend a lot of money on influencing the rule-makers. The ones who are most efficient at lobbying succeed, the ones who are not fail. How do you think this would effect a small business with less resources? In a free market, the tendency for larger groups to become inefficient comes to fruition and they do not have the access to a force-monopoly (government) to use as a crutch. Both small and large businesses have to defend what they have, they must have security and protect their property, as well as their trade routes. The smaller companies spend less on such security, big companies, especially those with trade secrets (NB no patents) have to spend a lot more to keep those secrets and defend their larger network of trade.

Also, in a real free market, property is based upon use and residence. This means you could not live in Florida and expect your vacant land with deed in Nevada to be protected by government. That costs, a lot. Also with homesteading open and land free, 96% of the United States becomes open to live and work on, you come, you build, and you own. You defend it. This drives down the cost of land and the cost of living. It very literally destroys rents overnight.

Those six examples are only a problem when government enforces them. Price fixing falls apart naturally when one of them decides to mark down, which they inevitably do. Unless an oligopoly is enforced and market entry denied or made far too expensive, a new competitor will enter the market, simply because of the price fix.

Churning is likely to make an impact only if the trading floors are already monopolized. The neat thing about diversified and competitive free markets is that they act as insulation against this kind of behavior.

Runs, see Churning above.

Ramping, again same thing.

Wash trading, again.

Bear raiding takes tremendous resources, really it takes an almost completely extant monopoly to work.

Also, strawman, I do not think natural forces are infallible, only infinitely preferable to man-made artificial forces. Top down controls do not work and only lead to misery and destruction.

The people own basically nothing when it comes to resources, and they need protections from those who do.

The people own nothing because of the protections. Regulations, corporate personhood, intellectual property, and inflation destroy the value of labor, benefit the wealthy, discourage saving, and encourage debt. Those "protections" only protect the wealthy, not you or me.

It's funny the faulty logic I hear repeated over and over and over again, "corporations run the government so we need the government to protect us from the corporations."

[–]TrustMeIDoMath 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyk0s 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sme52 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It could be interpreted that way, but since she is anarchists she felt that all people should have as much freedom as possible. Obviously, an anarchist recognizes that all people deserve to be free. To answer your list based on my understanding of anarchism.

they have the right to support themselves, but also the right to be supported by a man

Check, only society (no government) can pressure people to choose not to be supported by someone else. So maybe she thought society was fine in that way, but anarchists tend to be egalitarian so I doubt it. Although since anarcha-feminism wants a socialist economy where all people contribute by doing what they want for free and all people share in the unwanted duties like cleaning bathrooms.

to live for themselves if they feel their children are a burden

Generally not, anarchists tend to think that children need care of parents until they are old enough to support themselves. True someone could just drop a kid off at an orphanage and we expect this to happen and there are no legal repercussions for this as it is not a "violent" crime only morally reprehensible (yes anarchists have judicial systems). If a guy up and leaves the mother and vice versa, there is no way to enforce child support payments so people are equal in that way.

I believe the "freedom in motherhood" has to do with abortions (this was 1st wave feminism afterall). Most women were unemployed at that point so a man leaving would result in horrible repercussions.

to love one or many people without too much backlash

See societal pressures, but most anarchists do not moralize sexual relations. Or any interactions that are not violent or theft.

[–]zyk0s 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are fitting the current views of anarchism to what she professed at the time, but I doubt she specifically expressed herself on any of the issues we are talking about.

only society (no government) can pressure people to choose not to be supported by someone else.

But that's beside the point if a government can force someone to support someone else. When she lived, men supporting women was the norm, and the idea of a woman supporting a man was unthinkable, so my point stands that she probably wanted women to have the choice, but didn't think men should (but probably didn't think men should not either).

anarchists tend to think that children need care of parents until they are old enough to support themselves.

Yes, without enforcing it other than through social pressure, which are non-existent in most urban areas. Again, it's all about freedom, but we hear nothing about responsibility, and since women had very few of them, it's awfully convenient to omit them.

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyk0s 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Libertarian_Atheist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	"I demand freedom for both sexes. . ." - Emma Goldman (Anarcha-Feminist)
Author	Libertarian_Atheist
Upvotes	1
Comments	22
Date	April 30, 2012 8:13 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/szhem/i_demand_freedom_for_both_sexes_emma_goldman/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-demand-freedom-for-both-sexes-emma-goldman.1022882 https://theredarchive.com/post/1022882

Comments