Question for Anarco Cappys

[Verix]

I was wondoring if there are any Anarcho-capitalists in this board, what do you guys think will keep corporations from playing the same role as the goverment once its gone? :confused:

[Jack]

TEH CORPORASHUNS IS A GOVINMENT MONOPLY!

They insist that corporations cannot exist without the state, pretty much to appeal to liberals that ***** about"multinational corporations, while stressing they favor a "pure" capitalism where there will be no corporations and everyone will live in harmony with small businesses.

[Robert]

TEH CORPORASHUNS IS A GOVINMENT MONOPLY!

Boy, is you a-makin' fun o' may? You 'own't some sheeit?

[Havet]

I was wondoring if there are any Anarcho-capitalists in this board, what do you guys think will keep corporations from playing the same role as the goverment once its gone? :confused:

I don't like labelling, but i suppose my ideas could fall under the category of Anarcho - capitalism

Let me talk share some arguments about how corporations would likely not play the same role as governments, and then you will take your own conclusions. And for the arguments I would like to quote David Friedman in his "Machinery of Freedom"

Government: an agency of legitimized coercion. Coercion being the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals.

"Another related argument against ancap is that the "strongest" protection agency will always win, the big fish will eat the little fish, and the justice you will get will depend on the military strength of the agency you patronize.

This is a fine description of governments, but protection agencies are not territorial sovereigns. An agency which settles its disputes on the battlefield has already lost, however many battles it wins. Battles are expensive - also dangerous for clients whose front yards get turned into free-fire zones. No clients mean no money to pay for the troops.

Perhaps the best way to see why ancap would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives ina housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France anounces that because of troubles with neighburing countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-seven war correspondants.

We cannot all live in housetrailers. But, if we buy our protection from a private firm instead of a government, we can buy it from a different firm as soon as we think we can get a better deal. We can change protectors without changing countries.
The risk of private protection agencies throwing their weight - and lead - around is not great, provided there are lots of them. Which bring us to the second and far more serious argument against ancap.

The protection agencies will have a large fraction of the armed might of society. What can prevent them from getting toguether and using that might to set themselves up as government?
In some ultimate sense, nothing can prevent that save a populace possesing arms and willing, if necessary, to use them. That is one reason I am against gun-control legislation.
But there are safeguards less ultimate than armed resistance. After all, our present police departments, national guard, and armed forces already possses most of the armed might. Why have they not combined to run the country for their own benefit? Neither soldiers nor policement are especially well paid; surely they could impose a better settlement at gunpoint.

A brief answer is that people act according to what they perceive as right, proper, and practical. The restraints which prevent a military coup are essentially restraints interior to the men with guns.
We must ask not whether an ancap society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns, but whether it would be safer than our current society.
In our society, the men who must engineer a coup are politicians, military officers, and policement, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe they have the right to push other men around - that is their job. Under ancap the men in control of protection agencies are "selected" by their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled "non-power freaks need not apply"

anotherrelevant factor is the number of protection agencies. If there are only two or three agencies in the entire area now covered by the USA, a conspiracy among them may be practical. If there are 10,000, then when any group starts acting like government, their customers will hire someone else to protect them against their protectors.

Protection agencies have no rights which individuals do not have, and they therefore cannot engage in legitimized coercion. This does not mean that they will never coerce anyone. a protection agency, like a government, can make a mistake and arrest the wrong man. In exactly the same way, a private citizen can shoot at what he thinks is a prowler and bag the postman instead. In each case, coercion occurs, but by accident, and the coercer is liable for the consequences of his acts.
This is not true for government actions. In order to sue a policeman for false arrest, I must prove not merely that I was innocent but also that the policeman had no reason to suspect me. If i am locked up for 20 years and then proven innocent, i have no legal claim against the government for my lost time and mental anguish. It is recognized the government made a mistake, but the government is allowed to make mistakes and need not pay for them like the rest of us."

Apologies for the length of the arguments, but they have already been shortened to try and compress the points. I will be available to explain some of them if necessary.

[IcarusAngel]

There are all kinds of these obvious objections to anarcho-capitalism: the corporations will come to dominate all of the resources; there is no way to truly and justly "own property" that doesn't affect everybody else and hasn't been appropriated in an obviously unjustified way in history, there is an elite ownership of resources that is hierarchical and tyrannyical and has been opposed historically by anarchists, socialists, and progressives; corporations come to power through land grabs and various techniques based on manipulation of people and resources, etc. etc. etc.

Interestingly, an-caps I've talked to actually do not have a problem with corporations owning most of the resources. They claim that they arrive at their definitions of property through "pure logic and reason" but you can find numerous fallacies and errors in their arguments quite easily, like those above. So, ironically, they do not disprove socialist theories by their "pure logic," but only by their pure idiocy, as socialism would assume that most people are logical enough to govern themselves and make the correct decisions as to what to do with resources if given the option to help control and shape them.

I personally see anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians as economic terrorists. They call for the legality of exploitation, and those who do not obey only have the option to starve to death (Marx touched on this viewpoint).

Interestingly, I had a Libertarian admit to me that he would need a government to implement his totalitarian nightmare. He said that it would be paid for by "sales taxes," which are "voluntary" whereas income taxes are not voluntary, because with "sales taxes" you can choose not to pay them.

Here is the error in logic: You can avoid paying sales taxes only if you avoid all resources like food, clothing, etc., which is impossible in a capitalist society (you have to buy food or clothing or materials at some point, which are controlled by the 'power elites'), so the argument that they are 'voluntary' is like saying that income taxes are also 'voluntary' - just don't work a job if you don't want to pay them.

Again, it is their stupidity and existence in humanity that is their best argument against socialism, not their actual arguments.

[Robert]

They insist that corporations cannot exist without the stateWhat? Corporations by definition do exist by virtue of some kind of charter, license, or registry from the state, so that statement isn't nonsense on its face.

You can complain that there is theft and corruption in the tax deals and control of resources and police protection and limitations on personal liability that corporate owners get from the state, in exchange for the charter and the fees they pay for it. You can also fear private, uncontrolled armies or bands of armed thugs that will surely take the place of the state to allow McDonalds to keep selling burgers and Exxon to keep drilling.

But strictly speaking, there is no "incorporation" that anyone is likely to recognize and respect if it doesn't have a legal meaning, which, without a state, it will not.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. But how exactly does the government get the power to enforce these corporate contracts and business property? Through force. This is a type of force that exists that will always require a government to protect so it's ridiculous to talk of "anarcho-capitalism." Max Weber's definition of government would mean capitalism always requires a government.

If we say that property will be protected by these "armed gangs" or private institutions, then it's just a matter of might makes right. No matter where you turn to justify anarcho-capitalism, it is a place most people wouldn't want to be.

In short Libertarians refuse to define their version of "force" force. A bunch of assholes in otherwords.

[Robert]

In short Libertarians refuse to define their version of "force" force. A bunch of assholes in otherwords. Could we have a real Libertarian step forward and ratify that statement? I doubt there are many who think this way.

My own aversion to Libertarians is that they would lift legal restrictions on much conduct -- child labor, workplace safety laws, unrestricted fishing and hunting, for example -- that is abhorrent to reasonable people. No Libertarian will say he supports such things, but I see it as inevitable in the absence of government.

There's an Anarcho-capitalist in the thread somewhere above ...hayenmill, is it? Can we hear from you on the above and also on this:


In exactly the same way, a private citizen can shoot at what he thinks is a prowler and bag the postman instead. In each case, coercion occurs, but by accident, and the coercer is liable for the consequences of his acts."Liable"? You mean like lawyers going into courtrooms and suing for money damages, that kind of thing? And property seized to satisfy a money judgment? What do you call the agency that does this "seizing" if not a government? What do you call the agency that makes sure he gets a fair trial?

And what if he shoots your postman (speaking of government:)) on purpose. What should happen next in your world view?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Corporations are essentially voluntary where-as the State coerces and demands co-operation, that's the key difference. In a corporation the employee voluntarily applies for the job and gets it, the corporation voluntarily provides the goods and services being sold for profit, the consumer voluntarily pays for said good and/or service.

None of them are forced into interaction but all voluntarily come into action in search of their own best interest.

The State however forces people to pay them through taxation and forces people to work for them through conscription (just because it's not in use doesnt mean the draft is off the books).

[#FF0000]

Corporations are essentially voluntary where-as the State coerces and demands co-operation, that's the key difference. In a corporation the employee voluntarily applies for the job and gets it, the corporation voluntarily provides the goods and services being sold for profit, the consumer voluntarily pays for said good and/or service.

None of them are forced into interaction but all voluntarily come into action in search of their own best interest

Tell me how fucking voluntary something is if the other option is poverty.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Tell me how fucking voluntary something is if the other option is poverty.

The work you choose is optional. You dont HAVE to work for any specific business or entity in any specific duty; you choose the business and apply for the position based on your talents, the availability of the position, and the desire the employer has for your labor.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Lol! All corporations are voluntary? Tell that to Colombian unionists getting kidnapped and murdered by right-wing paramilitaries hired by, Coca-Cola.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm

[Robert]

Jeez, Boner, not even your own link states that those claims are true. It's just a lawsuit at this point. I hope they're not true, of course, as I drink a lot of coca cola myself. (Try a nice cold Mexican coke in a bottle. Excellent!)

[Rosa Provokateur]

Lol! All corporations are voluntary? Tell that to Colombian unionists getting kidnapped and murdered by right-wing paramilitaries hired by, Coca-Cola.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm

If it's forcing people to work than it's coercive and violates peoples rights, contradicting what I believe in and becoming worthy of destruction. The State is a coercive monopoly and any corportation that becomes coercive is no better than the State; the strength of the free-market comes in at this point because we have other businesses to work with if we dont like the coercive one where-as that option is non-existent when dealing with the State.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Jeez, Boner, not even your own link states that those claims are even half true. It's just a lawsuit at this point. I hope they're not true, of course, as I drink a lot of coca cola myself. (Try a nice cold Mexican coke in a bottle. Excellent!)

Anyway, pointing to corruption and an abuse of power by one corporation is not a very good refutation of Apostle's argument, which is defective for other reasons IMO.
Well to be honest I'm not to interested in debating the issue, I just thought it was absurd to claim that all corporations are simply voluntary, and that corporations don't use force or coercive means to get their desired results. That's simply untrue.

I'm not entirely sure about the issue of Coke using paramilitaries to murder unionists, but its certainly questionable, and would not be surprising. There can be no doubt that Coca-Cola benefits from union leaders being murdered.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Well to be honest I'm not to interested in debating the issue, I just thought it was absurd to claim that all corporations are simply voluntary, and that corporations don't use force or coercive means to get their desired results. That's simply untrue.

I'm not entirely sure about the issue of Coke using paramilitaries to murder unionists, but its certainly questionable, and would not be surprising. There can be no doubt that Coca-Cola benefits from union leaders being murdered.

You're right, not all are but for the most part it's the norm for them to be voluntary. I'll concede that businesses do corrupt society by lobbying the State and pushing for laws that card-stack against smaller competitors however, such action is coercive and should be made impossible. By eliminating the State we take away the ability to lobby and thus larger business cant push for legislation that over-regulates small owners in ways simular to how the Democrats and Republicans make insane demands against third parties.

The lobbying and favoritist regulation thus abolished, profit will go according to quantity and quality rather than to power and bribery.

[Dejavu]

Corporations are essentially voluntary where-as the State coerces and demands co-operation, that's the key difference. In a corporation the employee voluntarily applies for the job and gets it, the corporation voluntarily provides the goods and services being sold for profit, the consumer voluntarily pays for said good and/or service.

None of them are forced into interaction but all voluntarily come into action in search of their own best interest.

The State however forces people to pay them through taxation and forces people to work for them through conscription (just because it's not in use doesnt mean the draft is off the books).

Not really correct. I think you are confusing free enterprise with corporations. Corps are govt charters which socialize losses by force if necessary.

I understand your new found zeal for mechanisms of a true free market but I beg of you not to turn into a vulgar dickhead ancap. Talk to me for a while and you'll see soon enough you can be consistent pluralistic pro-market anarchist without being a capitalist or a vulgar dickhead socialist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Not really correct. I think you are confusing free enterprise with corporations. Corps are govt charters which socialize losses by force if necessary.

I understand your new found zeal for mechanisms of a true free market but I beg of you not to turn into a vulgar dickhead ancap. Talk to me for a while and you'll see soon enough you can be consistent pluralistic pro-market anarchist without being a capitalist or a vulgar dickhead socialist.

Haha, I like you already:D

[Octobox]

Corporations would not exist in any form of Anarchist Society.

They exist by-way of Gov't Coersion: Licensure - Bailouts - Subsidization - Regulatory Advantages - Fiat Credit - Tax Breaks

In an A-Cap Society (Free-Market Anarchy) there are only two profit occilators and thus only two ways to make "big dollars:" #1 Intra-preneurs and #2 Entre-preneurs

In a Cronism or Corporatism (Corporate Fascism) like we have now the Corporate Revenue Stream is thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Coersion.

In a Free-Market Anarchy a Sole-Proprietorship or Worker-Owned Business the Revenue Stream would be thus: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest

In a Corporatist Society the Wealthy's Money moves Slow (protected) while the Poor's move Fast (stolen by tax and inflationary theft)

In a Free-Society the Wealthy's move Fast while the Poor's move Slow
---Referring to investment / re-investment --- Less risk in slow movement

Poor to Middle Income people are the Intra-preneurs and Entre-preneurs in both societies.

No Intellectual Property Rights in a Free-Society (according to Lew Rockwell) -- No State authority to enforce it -- Thus, no over-arching corporations (Microsoft)

Octobox

[Havet]

Could we have a real Libertarian step forward and ratify that statement? I doubt there are many who think this way.

My own aversion to Libertarians is that they would lift legal restrictions on much conduct -- child labor, workplace safety laws, unrestricted fishing and hunting, for example -- that is abhorrent to reasonable people. No Libertarian will say he supports such things, but I see it as inevitable in the absence of government.

There's an Anarcho-capitalist in the thread somewhere above ...hayenmill, is it?

Like i said, i don't like labelling myself. I am generally pro-market pro-individual freedom type of guy.

I cannot speak in the name of all libertarians, but generally our definition of force comes from the Non-Agression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), a code of conduct that, alongside with Self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_ownership), would be the basis of a free society.

Such principle holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense or retaliation against aggression.

So basically you can only use force in self-defense.

While i'm at it, let me explain the other principle. The concept of self-ownership "says that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that she has not contracted to supply.

Basically this means that libertarians are against people forcing others to work for them at gunpoint (slavery), and against laws against weapons (so whoever saw fit could buy a weapon to defend himself) and against laws prohibiting drugs (because since its your body you decide what to put inside of it).

I cannot say I support with the things you have mentioned above that you dislike about libertarians, but the way I see it, free people would engage in making those obsolete. There can be really free schools paid by advertisement, communities which provide free schooling and others ways of preventing children to have to resort to labor.

Workplace safety laws would also derive from competition between businesses to get the best workers, and assuming workers would have choice (which they do, most of the time), then businesses who would not engage in improving their work conditions could not find anyone willing to work for them.

As for unrestricted fishing and hunting, it depends. It depends if there is someone, or a group of persons, owning the land and/or water where the person is hunting, or whether the emergence of communities could restrict people going by or people who lived there from engaging in such activity inside the community (since the community would own the land where it was located).

The inevitability of some of this cases appearing without a government can happen, although there are many reasons as to why it would not happen.


Can we hear from you on the above and also on this:

"Liable"? You mean like lawyers going into courtrooms and suing for money damages, that kind of thing? And property seized to satisfy a money judgment? What do you call the agency that does this "seizing" if not a government? What do you call the agency that makes sure he gets a fair trial?

And what if he shoots your postman (speaking of government:)) on purpose. What should happen next in your world view?Liable is used in the context that he is responsible for his actions. If he shoots someone and the victim would try and sue him for the damage he caused, the pain and the time the victim spent being healed, under a free society, the shooter would not be forced to obey the ruling of an arbitrator or a judge (assuming both had previously agreed on him).

The agency that does not seize and makes sure he gets a fair trial is called a protection agency, which could work similarly like insurance companies work today, and arbitrators, which already exist and replace, to some extent, public justice over a disput on contracts

Let me draw a scenario for easier understanding

since there can't be any unlegitimate use of force, a court that would issue a ruling against an hypothetical A person would give the A person with two choices. Choices have consequences. Person A can either abide the ruling or ignore it.

If person A decided to ignore it, she would pay a price in terms of reputation. There could be a record of the person's credit report and crime report, besides her personal reputation. Therefore, the "rating" of the person would be lowered, and the information could be transfered to other agencies who wished to deal with the person. A similar system is already in place in Ebay, where Ebay "enforces" (in the sense that if the person who wishes to use ebay must do that part of the "contract") a system that keeps track of how legitimate a person is when selling or buying, that information being displayed to other sellers or buyers.

All these things already exist and are private, but in ancap what would change would be their degree (how much and where else would they be used).

Also if it is found that an arbitrator is favoring someone unjustly, due to the existance and constant competition for customers, other arbitrators would be quick to denounce this and the arbitrator's own reputation would fall

[IcarusAngel]

The Market-Anarchist's inability to use reason and logic is his biggest flaw and why he can't be taken seriously.

Again, the "market anarchist" in this case has done what was predicted - refused to define his coercion as an involuntary force. People in East Timor do not participate in industrialism, even though they have to suffer the consequences of it, and yet for them to defend themselves it would be considered force on their part, because of capitalist "property relations."

First, one can't use a definition to prove anything, and certainly not market anarchism. You can't say that the "non-aggression principle" proves that capitalist property rights are not forceful.

Obviously, as I noted above, if someone owns property that does not mean he either (1) justly acquired it or (2) that he doesn't need coercion and force to protect it.

Saying self-ownership, which makes no sense and is philosophically invalid, is necessary to a free-society is also invalid. Self-ownership would imply that your body is property and that, if you owed a debt to someone, they could come after your final piece of property, your body.

A more constructive example:

The freest things that exist in society require no force or property: ideas, creativity, and so on.

The things that require force, land ownership, etc., require property and have been the basis for all wars.

Thus, a freer society would necessarily rely on things that require no force to implement, and we should try and minimize property. Etc.

Murray Rothbard used the same flawed arguments for self-ownership, claiming that creativity only comes form self-ownership etc., but he failed to establish any causation between the two. Ed Fesser, a philosophical conservative, did a great job in showing the basic errors in Libertarian-Capitalist (corporatist) thinking.

[IcarusAngel]

Corporations would not exist in any form of Anarchist Society.

They exist by-way of Gov't Coersion: Licensure - Bailouts - Subsidization - Regulatory Advantages - Fiat Credit - Tax Breaks

Capitalist property rights only exist because of the government - they were created by the government or they were left over ideas from past systems, such as feudalism. In a certain sense feudalism is even closer to anarcho-capitalist, as there existed private armies.

Dictators exist by declaring entire nations stations to be their 'property', of which they are the private owners. (See: Politics: A Very Short Introduction.)

It is not necessarily the corporations that require bailouts, but the system itself that needs to be "shot in the arm" and to have the government perform certain actions to help stimulate the economy. This is a basis of even mainstream economics and it's certainly well known in political science and sociology.

Thus, since capitalist property relations cannot exist without the state, anarcho-capitalism can never be said to be considered a valid form of anarchism.


In a Free-Society the Wealthy's move Fast while the Poor's move Slow
---Referring to investment / re-investment --- Less risk in slow movement

Poor to Middle Income people are the Intra-preneurs and Entre-preneurs in both societies.

No Intellectual Property Rights in a Free-Society (according to Lew Rockwell) -- No State authority to enforce it -- Thus, no over-arching corporations (Microsoft)


Name one thing ever developed entirely out of the free-market.

Microsoft was able to make so much money because Unix itself was tied up in intellectual property disputes. Had AT&T or another corporation been able to standardize it and declare it their intellectual property maybe Unix would be the standard OS used on everybody's computers. The problem was that there numerous corporations all claiming Unix their "property" (not just 'intellectual property') and thus creating too many standards for it to be used efficiently. Developers had to use DOS just to get anything done.

AT&T itself was actually responsible for many innovations as a monopoly, and the "freer-market" has only succeeded in creating more complicated 'family plans' and re-inventing the wheel. In fact, they've only succeeded in creating other large corporations who also receive billions from the government, now the government has to fund all of them.

C, C++, mobile and cell phone development, and transistors, were done with AT&T corporate/government research.

There are similar stories in every industry. The aeronautical industry was once run practically run by the government. The agricultural industry receives enormous funds from the government. The telecommunications industry had the government help them implement their whole system, and now they want to "privatize" it.

In fact, in general, the government has historically spent half of the expenditures of all R&D, the rest come from government protected and sanctioned corporations and Universities.

It seems that in a capitalist society, the only way to have production done is from the goverment, Universities, and burecracies, with individual contributers here and there who base their own research from the system.

So, why would any sane person want to privatize anything at all, like computers and the internet (an entirely government funded product) are now privatized, just so that monopolies can sit on their hands and avoid creation and creativity, and just so corporations alone can profit off of the hard work of everybody, charging 60+ dollars for basic internet access?

We'd have been better off with continued, University "open standards" with computers and the National Science Foundation running the internet (as they did in the 90s) instead of the e-commerce and Apple and MS bullshit that exists now.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Like i said, i don't like labelling myself. I am generally pro-market pro-individual freedom type of guy.

I cannot speak in the name of all libertarians, but generally our definition of force comes from the Non-Agression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), a code of conduct that, alongside with Self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_ownership), would be the basis of a free society.

Such principle holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense or retaliation against aggression.

So basically you can only use force in self-defense.

While i'm at it, let me explain the other principle. The concept of self-ownership "says that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that she has not contracted to supply.

Basically this means that libertarians are against people forcing others to work for them at gunpoint (slavery), and against laws against weapons (so whoever saw fit could buy a weapon to defend himself) and against laws prohibiting drugs (because since its your body you decide what to put inside of it).

I cannot say I support with the things you have mentioned above that you dislike about libertarians, but the way I see it, free people would engage in making those obsolete. There can be really free schools paid by advertisement, communities which provide free schooling and others ways of preventing children to have to resort to labor.

Workplace safety laws would also derive from competition between businesses to get the best workers, and assuming workers would have choice (which they do, most of the time), then businesses who would not engage in improving their work conditions could not find anyone willing to work for them.

As for unrestricted fishing and hunting, it depends. It depends if there is someone, or a group of persons, owning the land and/or water where the person is hunting, or whether the emergence of communities could restrict people going by or people who lived there from engaging in such activity inside the community (since the community would own the land where it was located).

The inevitability of some of this cases appearing without a government can happen, although there are many reasons as to why it would not happen.

Liable is used in the context that he is responsible for his actions. If he shoots someone and the victim would try and sue him for the damage he caused, the pain and the time the victim spent being healed, under a free society, the shooter would not be forced to obey the ruling of an arbitrator or a judge (assuming both had previously agreed on him).

The agency that does not seize and makes sure he gets a fair trial is called a protection agency, which could work similarly like insurance companies work today, and arbitrators, which already exist and replace, to some extent, public justice over a disput on contracts

Let me draw a scenario for easier understanding

since there can't be any unlegitimate use of force, a court that would issue a ruling against an hypothetical A person would give the A person with two choices. Choices have consequences. Person A can either abide the ruling or ignore it.

If person A decided to ignore it, she would pay a price in terms of reputation. There could be a record of the person's credit report and crime report, besides her personal reputation. Therefore, the "rating" of the person would be lowered, and the information could be transfered to other agencies who wished to deal with the person. A similar system is already in place in Ebay, where Ebay "enforces" (in the sense that if the person who wishes to use ebay must do that part of the "contract") a system that keeps track of how legitimate a person is when selling or buying, that information being displayed to other sellers or buyers.

All these things already exist and are private, but in ancap what would change would be their degree (how much and where else would they be used).

Also if it is found that an arbitrator is favoring someone unjustly, due to the existance and constant competition for customers, other arbitrators would be quick to denounce this and the arbitrator's own reputation would fall

Well done, I think you're gonna do this site alot of good.

[Havet]

Again, the "market anarchist" in this case has done what was predicted - refused to define his coercion as an involuntary force. People in East Timor do not participate in industrialism, even though they have to suffer the consequences of it, and yet for them to defend themselves it would be considered force on their part, because of capitalist "property relations."

Coercion is not an involuntary force. "Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation), trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way"

What consequences do East timor people suffer from industry? Has industry forced people at gunpoint to buy their products? If so, industry is to blame. Has industry polluted their natural resources? If so, people should take direct action on industry, since they are actively harming someone.

They can defend themselves and not be considered force on their part. Just take one of the examples i looked above. Here's another one

"In late 1999, about 70% of the economic infrastructure of East Timor was destroyed by Indonesian troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia)"

They could have used forced against the indonesian troops, because it would be self-defense



Obviously, as I noted above, if someone owns property that does not mean he either (1) justly acquired it or (2) that he doesn't need coercion and force to protect it.

Sure, people can steal property, therefore the property they have was unjustly aquired. But how can they not use force to protect it? How do you prevent someone from stealing your food?


Self-ownership would imply that your body is property and that, if you owed a debt to someone, they could come after your final piece of property, your body.

Self ownership implies that one holds no debts to anyone from birthright. if self-ownership were not recognized then people would not be allowed to sell the use of their productive capacities to others.

And concerning your example, self-ownership doesn't give someone a claim on another that has a debt. however, the "victim" does owe the other something, and should therefore pay him back, not with his body, but with his time, effort, product of labor, or something else they both agree with.



The freest things that exist in society require no force or property: ideas, creativity, and so on.

The things that require force, land ownership, etc., require property and have been the basis for all wars.

Thus, a freer society would necessarily rely on things that require no force to implement, and we should try and minimize property. Etc.

So you say people should not be free to have their own house, their own land? That they should be forced to not have them?

I can agree that the current method of "finders-keepers" is far from optimal, but the alternative you present is even worse.

[Havet]

It is not necessarily the corporations that require bailouts, but the system itself that needs to be "shot in the arm" and to have the government perform certain actions to help stimulate the economy. This is a basis of even mainstream economics and it's certainly well known in political science and sociology.

I agree corporations shouldn't require bailouts, but I also think no sector in society should be given money stolen, at gunpoint, by police, in the form of taxes, from ordinary people.


Thus, since capitalist property relations cannot exist without the state, anarcho-capitalism can never be said to be considered a valid form of anarchism.

property relations can exist without the state. I'm in a desert island with you, and let's say i have mixed my labor with a part of the island, so now I own it, and you have mixed labor with another part. Assuming both ownerships to be "justly aquired", if one of us tries to steal the other, and the other defends himself, he is applying property relations to their most basic levels.

In a more advanced society, whenever there was a dispute, people would tend to not initiate force as the first alternative, but rather to agree on arbitrators and agree to abide by their decision. Even if someone decided to not agree by the decision, he would suffer a penalty in the form of reputation, and would be likely to lower his "ratings" in the eyes of protection agencies whenever he tried to contract with them.

Anarcho-capitalism is a valid form of anarchy. What is anarchy?

"No rulership or enforced authority."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) (without the implication of disorder)."

In the case i presented above, there was no force behind, only consequences by the refusal of someone to be reasonable after stealing. There could be rulers, of course, so long as they did not enforce their ruling at gunpoint then they could exist.

Here is a nice quote by Bylund on the matter

"Capitalism in the sense of wealth accumulation as a result of oppressive and exploitative wage slavery must be abandoned. The enormous differences between the wealthy and the poor do not only cause tensions in society or personal harm to those exploited, but is essentially unjust. Most, if not all, property of today is generated and amassed through the use of force. This cannot be accepted, and no anarchists accept this state of inequality and injustice. As a matter of fact, anarcho-capitalists share this view with other anarchists. Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights” (see Murray N. Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Liberty)). The starting point of Rothbard’s argumentation is every man’s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors. Even the statist capitalist libertarian Robert Nozick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick) claimed contemporary property was unjustly accrued and that a free society, to him a “minimalist state,” needs to make up with this injustice (see Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_Utopia)”). Thus it seems anarcho-capitalists agree with Proudhon in that “property is theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft),” where it is acquired in an illegitimate manner. But they also agree with Proudhon in that “property is liberty” (See Albert Meltzer’s short analysis of Proudhon’s “property is liberty” in Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 12-13) in the sense that without property, i.e. being robbed of the fruits of one’s actions, one is a slave. Anarcho-capitalists thus advocate the freedom of a stateless society, where each individual has the sovereign right to his body and labor and through this right can pursue his or her own definition of happiness



Name one thing ever developed entirely out of the free-market.

Automobiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile)

Airplanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane)

Need I go on? Every invention that was done by individuals is the product of a free market. If they are sold with the recognition of property rights, they are still a product of the free market. Whether property rights are recognized by a state or by everyone in ancap society is of little difference. The mere fact they are being recognized is what allowed their existance.

With intellectual property the case is different. Patents are coercive monopolistic privileges granted by the state, and they would not exist in a free society, because they prohibit individuals from independently coming up with the same invention. However, even though i do not agree with such stance, copyrights are in some situations compatible with a free society.

When a copyright notice is on a piece of literary work this is a signal that the creator of the work does not consent to anyone to using it unless they agree to not to copy it, hence if it is used this constitutes a contract.



AT&T itself was actually responsible for many innovations as a monopoly, and the "freer-market" has only succeeded in creating more complicated 'family plans' and re-inventing the wheel. In fact, they've only succeeded in creating other large corporations who also receive billions from the government, now the government has to fund all of them.

There's no doubt monopolies can be creative, but by the fact they are monopolies reduce the amount of other creative and independant works than can appear. However, i believe natural monopolies are not inherently bad, because no one is forcing their existance (besides them being very rare). The most natural form of monopolt is state monopoly

"a government monopoly (or public monopoly) is a form of coercive monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly) in which a government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) agency is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law. It is a monopoly created by the government. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly#cite_note-0) It is usually distinguished from a government-granted monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly), where the government grants a monopoly to a private individual or company."

In such case, I am also against government-granted monopolies.


There are similar stories in every industry. The aeronautical industry was once run practically run by the government. The agricultural industry receives enormous funds from the government. The telecommunications industry had the government help them implement their whole system, and now they want to "privatize" it.

To privatize means that other people are also allowed to use those products and sell them, and that there is more diversity for more ideas, instead of just one centralized institution, which in regard to consumers, reduces choice and quality.



It seems that in a capitalist society, the only way to have production done is from the goverment, Universities, and burecracies, with individual contributers here and there who base their own research from the system.

bureocracies, for the most part, restrict what people are allowed to do and the time they need to do it. If someone who came from a private university would invent a new motor, market it without any patent and sell it, would you still believe it is a product of government? Just because there IS a government doesn't mean everything that happens in society is a product OF government.


So, why would any sane person want to privatize anything at all, like computers and the internet (an entirely government funded product) are now privatized, just so that monopolies can sit on their hands and avoid creation and creativity, and just so corporations alone can profit off of the hard work of everybody, charging 60+ dollars for basic internet access?

They were funded by government, that's right, but they could have appeared from the free market as well. In fact, it is a considerable amount of what may be called the free market that takes care of it now. It is not government that makes computers, sells software,etc but companies, businesses, etc. However, to the degree they are being helped by government to operate as they are is where i think government should not operate.


We'd have been better off with continued, University "open standards" with computers and the National Science Foundation running the internet (as they did in the 90s) instead of the e-commerce and Apple and MS bullshit that exists now.

So i take it you are against people being free to trade products and information in the internet. Let me ask you this, do you think that if the National Science Foundation run the internet still today REVLEFT would have been allowed to exist? With all the anti-commie propaganda government has accustomed us to it's hard to believe they would let REVLEFT exist.

[Nwoye]

Anarcho-Capitalism and Right-Libertarianism in general fails based on the faulty premise upon which their entire ideology stems - the theory of Self-Ownership (particularly that theory used to justify property and autonomy).

Basically the theory of self-ownership as the basis for property cannot be properly universalized, or applied to all situations, without creating some obvious inconsistencies.

For example, imagine a world under anarcho-capitalist principles, which is working perfectly (just use your imaginiation). Imagine that all of the land and natural resources of the entire world have been privatized, and done so in a completely legitimate manner (according to self-ownership/mixing your labor theory). What then, is to come of some new person entering the world? They are born with no land or property, and therefore nowhere to live. The only way he can live, is if someone offers a piece of their property or land for him to live on, in return for whatever amount of labor the propieter sees fit. If no one offers him this, then he dies. There is nothing the poor beggar can do to acquire property or land legitimately, or through his own means. He must rely on other people giving up theirs.

So in this sense, could it really be said that this new person is the exclusive controller of his or her own body and life? No. of course not. Those with property are. So in this situation, that person does not necessarily "own" themselves, even though that situation could occur completely legitimately according to anarcho-capitalist principles.

edit: to put it more succinctly: How can I be said to own myself if I may do nothing without the permission of others?

[Havet]

For example, imagine a world under anarcho-capitalist principles, which is working perfectly (just use your imaginiation). Imagine that all of the land and natural resources of the entire world have been privatized, and done so in a completely legitimate manner (according to self-ownership/mixing your labor theory). What then, is to come of some new person entering the world? They are born with no land or property, and therefore nowhere to live. The only way he can live, is if someone offers a piece of their property or land for him to live on, in return for whatever amount of labor the propieter sees fit. If no one offers him this, then he dies. There is nothing the poor beggar can do to acquire property or land legitimately, or through his own means. He must rely on other people giving up theirs.

So in this sense, could it really be said that this new person is the exclusive controller of his or her own body and life? No. of course not. Those with property are. So in this situation, that person does not necessarily "own" themselves, even though that situation could occur completely legitimately according to anarcho-capitalist principles.

edit: to put it more succinctly: How can I be said to own myself if I may do nothing without the permission of others?

all of the property and natural resources need not be completely privatized. There can surely be, and most likely exist, communities with resources which they can decide to share with others.

In fact, it would be impossible to live if everything were privatized. There needs to be a dynamic between private and common resources.

Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.

Example by Roderick Long:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."

[Nwoye]

all of the property and natural resources need not be completely privatized. There can surely be, and most likely exist, communities with resources which they can decide to share with others.

In fact, it would be impossible to live if everything were privatized. There needs to be a dynamic between private and common resources.

Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.
mmk. consider a remote island which is entirely privatized as the setting for the example.


Example by Roderick Long:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."
i actually addressed this example in the other ancap thread.

[Havet]

mmk. consider a remote island which is entirely privatized as the setting for the example.

If the person who owns it got it through his labor then I see nothing wrong with it. If he so decided, someone from the outside could not enter his island, just as a boat owner could decide someone to not enter his boat.

However, such argument could be used to suggest that in case of great island continents (like australia), if someone managed to raise enough capital to buy the whole of australia (which is MOST unlikely), they could, essentially, forbid others from entering it, although he would need to spend a lot of money to buy all the land, defend it and place surveillance on the entire australian coast to prevent anyone frome entering.

[Nwoye]

If the person who owns it got it through his labor then I see nothing wrong with it. If he so decided, someone from the outside could not enter his island, just as a boat owner could decide someone to not enter his boat.
oh yes the person who owns the island has done nothing wrong, and his property is legitimate (according to libertarian theory). But if a new person comes along, what is he to do? The proprietor of the island controls the means by which that new person must gain sustenance, and it is therefore his prerogative as to whether or not that person lives or dies.

now how could it be said that this new person has exclusive ownership over themselves, if another person controls their very existence?

[Havet]

oh yes the person who owns the island has done nothing wrong, and his property is legitimate (according to libertarian theory). But if a new person comes along, what is he to do? The proprietor of the island controls the means by which that new person must gain sustenance, and it is therefore his prerogative as to whether or not that person lives or dies.

now how could it be said that this new person has exclusive ownership over themselves, if another person controls their very existence?

he does not control the other's existance. It controls the means for which the other can exist, but not his existance. he does not control the other's movements, thoughts, breathing, heartbeat, etc etc

the fact that she doesn't has the resources to live doesn't mean she doesn't own herself. both of them don't owe nothing to each other. the newcomer is still free

But just because he is free to go to that island doesn't mean the island owner has to help him, otherwise the island owner would be enslaved

[Nwoye]

he does not control the other's existance. It controls the means for which the other can exist, but not his existance. he does not control the other's movements, thoughts, breathing, heartbeat, etc etc

the fact that she doesn't has the resources to live doesn't mean she doesn't own herself. both of them don't owe nothing to each other. the newcomer is still free
if someone owns all of an island which you must live on, do they not control whether you live or die?


ROBINSON CRUSOE, as we all know, took Friday as his slave. Suppose, however, that instead of taking Friday as his slave, Robinson Crusoe had welcomed him as a man and a brother; had read him a Declaration of Independence, an Emancipation Proclamation and a Fifteenth Amendment, and informed him that he was a free and independent citizen, entitled to vote and hold office; but had at the same time also informed him that that particular island was his (Robinson Crusoe's) private and exclusive property. What would have been the difference? Since Friday could not fly up into the air nor swim off through the sea, since if he lived at all he must live on the island, he would have been in one case as much a slave as in the other. Crusoe's ownership of the island would be equivalent of his ownership of Friday
(yes that's Henry George again)

the point is, there's no real difference between owning the land someone must live on "sharecropping/fuedalism" and owning that person "slavery". and both violate the philosophy of self-ownership.

[Havet]

if someone owns all of an island which you must live on, do they not control whether you live or die?

ROBINSON CRUSOE, as we all know, took Friday as his slave. Suppose, however, that instead of taking Friday as his slave, Robinson Crusoe had welcomed him as a man and a brother; had read him a Declaration of Independence, an Emancipation Proclamation and a Fifteenth Amendment, and informed him that he was a free and independent citizen, entitled to vote and hold office; but had at the same time also informed him that that particular island was his (Robinson Crusoe's) private and exclusive property. What would have been the difference? Since Friday could not fly up into the air nor swim off through the sea, since if he lived at all he must live on the island, he would have been in one case as much a slave as in the other. Crusoe's ownership of the island would be equivalent of his ownership of Friday
(yes that's Henry George again)

the point is, there's no real difference between owning the land someone must live on "sharecropping/fuedalism" and owning that person "slavery". and both violate the philosophy of self-ownership.

yes there is. you have overlooked one of my most important arguments:

"But just because he is free to go to that island doesn't mean the island owner has to help him, otherwise the island owner would be enslaved"

I can be here all year trying to explain this to you, but it is likely you will ignore my arguments, because i think you are more concerned in proving to yourself you are right than finding out what is right, so you'll pick up parts of the arguments that work well with your assumptions.

slavery: Slavery is a form of forced labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor) in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration) (such as wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages)

If i own the land someone must leave on, since it's not the only land in the world, I am not forcing the person to stay there, the person can leave, she doesn't need to accept my conditions. I am not holding the person against her will, she is NOT deprived from the right to leave.

[IcarusAngel]

Coercion is not an involuntary force. "Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation), trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way"

Coercion certainly is an involuntary force. Capitalist property rights is coercion, I didn't agree to it, and yet it is forced by the barrell of a gun upon me.

An involuntary force is a force that both parties did not agree to, much like an externality (pollution) is an involuntary force on the people of East Timor.


Sure, people can steal property, therefore the property they have was unjustly aquired. But how can they not use force to protect it? How do you prevent someone from stealing your food?

This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is no way for people to own property according to capitalist principles - it is all an involuntary force against people.


Self ownership implies that one holds no debts to anyone from birthright. if self-ownership were not recognized then people would not be allowed to sell the use of their productive capacities to others.

That doesn't follow logically. You can still perform actions without having any notion of self-ownership, and indeed creatures in nature are able to get food and resources - and make decisions - and also of course have no concept of self-ownership.

Self-ownership is contradictory and makes no logical sense.


I agree corporations shouldn't require bailouts, but I also think no sector in society should be given money stolen...

Since all capitalist property is stealing from the workers it makes sense to tax them to force them to give something back to the community.


property relations can exist without the state. I'm in a desert island with you, and let's say i have mixed my labor with a part of the island, so now I own it, and you have mixed labor with another part.

If you make up that you "own" just because you supposedly "mixed your labor with it" you're simply creating your version of a state and telling everybody else that they must accept your absolute right to "own" the property, even though that is ridiculous.

It would make far more sense for the people on the island to cooperate, and everybody owns the land equally.


Anarcho-capitalism is a valid form of anarchy. What is anarchy?

"No rulership or enforced authority."

But your version of anarchism is a forced authority - the authority of property rights, which are necessarily restrictive and an elite based type of system.

So yes, by that definition anarcho-capitalism is not valid.



Automobiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile)

Airplanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane)


Neither one of those was developed out of entirely a free-market. The government was always providing regulations and assistence to the development of both of them.

When the market was freer, the aeronautical industry nearly destroyed itself and the government had to take it over, even using government run corporations and so on. Automobiles similarly have an enormous amount of government involvement in them.


Every invention that was done by individuals is the product of a free market.

No, because that individuals was perhaps trained by the state and perhaps is sharing the ideas created by everybody, ideas that capitalists haven't found a way to copyright yet.

Furthermore, the society that they exist in is not free-market, so you can't say that it was out of the "free-market" that things developed, because these free-market principles don't exist.


There's no doubt monopolies can be creative, but by the fact they are monopolies reduce the amount of other creative and independant works than can appear.

Because free-markets are so inefficient it takes a monopoly just to be able to get any advancements or work done in an industry.



To privatize means that other people are also allowed to use those products and sell them, and that there is more diversity for more ideas, instead of just one centralized institution, which in regard to consumers, reduces choice and quality.


The market has reduced the choice and quality when it comes to cars. There is no reason why cars cannot still be mader safer and get better gas milage, but this doesn't happen because of market principles as they do not want to sacrifice their profits for the benefit of humanity. Numerous other technologies have been held back in the "free-market" because corporations come to decide that the products, while although better for consumers, are not better for profits.

Really, every car could be electric now and this would save on environmental pollution and even reduce global warming, but this doesn't happen because of market principles.


So i take it you are against people being free to trade products and information in the internet. Let me ask you this, do you think that if the National Science Foundation run the internet still today REVLEFT would have been allowed to exist? With all the anti-commie propaganda government has accustomed us to it's hard to believe they would let REVLEFT exist.

No, because the highways people would promote open standards, much like the real highways people use to move around.

Right now, if it wasn't for net neutrality, which exists because of the public involvement with the internet, corporations could easily make it impossible to go to websites like revleft by regulating the traffic, making it much harder to go to the website, if at all, and would make it more easy to go to websites that the provider could profit from.

This is privatized discrimination and perfectly legal in Libertarianism (corporate fascism).

Furthermore, microsoft technologies already make it more difficult to share what you own with people, thus controlling your privacy. Really, microsoft DMA technology could be mised to prevent you from reading say an article critical of Bush or capitalism, if they so wanted, because every piece of software is regulated by the OS.

Capitalism has already created too much discrimination, and is creating more, and so open-standards and public democracy are required.

[Nwoye]

yes there is. you have overlooked one of my most important arguments:

"But just because he is free to go to that island doesn't mean the island owner has to help him, otherwise the island owner would be enslaved"
i didn't overlook it. i simply did not address it. for 2 reasons.

1) it's irrelevant. i never said the proprietor is obligated or should be forced to help the new person, and i never suggested that his property should be forcefully removed. i was simply pointing out an inconsistency in the self-ownership argument.

2) I kind of agree with you. my opinion is that individual autonomy should be the foremost goal of political, social and economic organization. the thought that the state or even a bunch of people with AK-47's could depose me of my legitimate property to serve the "greater good" is extremely undesirable to me. however, this means it is incredibly important for me to determine what constitutes legitimate property. right-libertarians say that self-ownership and by extension mixing your labor is a legitimate justification for property, and i am disputing that.


I can be here all year trying to explain this to you, but it is likely you will ignore my arguments, because i think you are more concerned in proving to yourself you are right than finding out what is right, so you'll pick up parts of the arguments that work well with your assumptions.let's not do personal comments plz. if i do choose to not address parts of your argument, it's probably because they are irrelevant, just a reiteration of an earlier point, or are not a point of disagreement between us.


If i own the land someone must leave on, since it's not the only land in the world, I am not forcing the person to stay there, the person can leave, she doesn't need to accept my conditions. I am not holding the person against her will, she is NOT deprived from the right to leave.
okay. but what is the distinction between feudalism (my island example) and slavery? do they not both violate individual autonomy and control over ones life?

and in anticipation of your next point:
Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.

[Havet]

Coercion certainly is an involuntary force. Capitalist property rights is coercion, I didn't agree to it, and yet it is forced by the barrell of a gun upon me.

So then it's ok for me to come by your house and take your monitor? After all, you keep repeating you don't have a right to it


This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is no way for people to own property according to capitalist principles - it is all an involuntary force against people.

Then give me all your property so I make sure you aren't being forced to anything


That doesn't follow logically. You can still perform actions without having any notion of self-ownership, and indeed creatures in nature are able to get food and resources - and make decisions - and also of course have no concept of self-ownership.

You don't need to have a notion of self-ownership to perform actions. What I meant, and may have been misunderstood or badly expressed, is that without people recognizing that you own yourself, and with entities protecting people from others who did not recognize that, then we would have REAL slavery again.


Since all capitalist property is stealing from the workers it makes sense to tax them to force them to give something back to the community.

again we go

"theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) without that person's freely-given consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent). "

the workers have consented to work there, and consented to sell the products they make with the machines for X dollars.


If you make up that you "own" just because you supposedly "mixed your labor with it" you're simply creating your version of a state and telling everybody else that they must accept your absolute right to "own" the property, even though that is ridiculous.

well, isn't it obvious to see if one did or did not mix his labor with something?


It would make far more sense for the people on the island to cooperate, and everybody owns the land equally.

hey, i have no doubt it would make more sense. thats not what im arguing. im arguing your right to force others who have property to give it away simply because others need it.



Neither one of those was developed out of entirely a free-market. The government was always providing regulations and assistence to the development of both of them.

When the market was freer, the aeronautical industry nearly destroyed itself and the government had to take it over, even using government run corporations and so on. Automobiles similarly have an enormous amount of government involvement in them.

got any proof that the aeronautical industry nearly destroyed itself? All of the important aeronautical work was done by private companies: boeing, de havilland, etc

Your automobile example is a typical fallacy. Because automobiles NOW have a lot of government intervention then than "must" mean they need government intervention, when in fact that argument is not logically consistent.

to give you an example, take safety belts

"
Edward J. Hock invented the safety belt first used by the Ford Motor Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company) as standard equipment, while he was on active duty with the military as a flight instructor. In 1955 his idea was accepted by the naval authorities, and Hock was awarded $20.50 for his invention. The original schematic and blueprints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint) shows that he utilized scrap parachute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute) strapping to implement his idea. He was never awarded anything other than the $20.50 award, a letter of recognition, a picture with military "brass", and a newspaper article to his credit.
The three point seat belt (the so-called CIR-Griswold restraint) was patented in 1951 by the Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh De Haven.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-13)
Saab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab) was the first car manufacturer to introduce seat belts as standard in 1958.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-14) After the Saab GT 750 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_GT750) was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-15)
Nils Bohlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bohlin) of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) invented a particular kind of three point seat belt for Volvo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo), who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=3043625) for the device.
In 1955 Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford) offered for the first time lap belts as an option.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-16) In 1956, largely at the insistence of executive Robert McNamara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara), seat belts were offered for consumer automobiles within the "Lifeguard" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_%28Automobile_safety%29) safety package.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-Johnson-17) The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry, but it caught on with the public.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-Johnson-17) By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.
In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers."


So who came first? government forcing safety belts or safety belts themselves?




No, because that individuals was perhaps trained by the state and perhaps is sharing the ideas created by everybody, ideas that capitalists haven't found a way to copyright yet.

lmao...


Furthermore, the society that they exist in is not free-market, so you can't say that it was out of the "free-market" that things developed, because these free-market principles don't exist.

everything that was done by individuals without any aid from the state or government is a FREE MARKET PRODUCT, because free market is - tadaaaa - the result of people being free to trade! See? that wasn't so hard.


Because free-markets are so inefficient it takes a monopoly just to be able to get any advancements or work done in an industry.

haha, are you serious?

Free market does not innovate?

Ever heard of Du Pont? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

They are a chemichal company which invented:
-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra

If monopoly is sooooooooooooo efficient, why doesn't government take over the internet? Why not take over google?

truth is, if government took over internet, forums like these, communist forums, would be forbidden by the government, and we would not be discussing this.



The market has reduced the choice and quality when it comes to cars. There is no reason why cars cannot still be mader safer and get better gas milage, but this doesn't happen because of market principles as they do not want to sacrifice their profits for the benefit of humanity. Numerous other technologies have been held back in the "free-market" because corporations come to decide that the products, while although better for consumers, are not better for profits.

if people wanted safer cars with better gas milage people would buy them

no one would buy the unsafe ones and they would go out of business

but people care more about having a fast car or a big car than a safe car

Business owners respond to DEMAND, so if thats what people want, thats where they'll get more profit.


Really, every car could be electric now and this would save on environmental pollution and even reduce global warming, but this doesn't happen because of market principles.

The reason every car isn't electric, or hybrid, or hydrogen by now is because people are not looking for it enough so it compensates business owners to invest in their creation.



Right now, if it wasn't for net neutrality, which exists because of the public involvement with the internet, corporations could easily make it impossible to go to websites like revleft by regulating the traffic, making it much harder to go to the website, if at all, and would make it more easy to go to websites that the provider could profit from.

Net neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)doesn't exist

It's proposed, but it hasn't been passed yet

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle) proposed for residential broadband networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_networks) and potentially for all networks.


Furthermore, microsoft technologies already make it more difficult to share what you own with people, thus controlling your privacy. Really, microsoft DMA technology could be mised to prevent you from reading say an article critical of Bush or capitalism, if they so wanted, because every piece of software is regulated by the OS.

Except people are free to make other OS... that's called FREE MARKET!1

Example: Linux

Who regulated Linux into existance?

yeesh you are DENSE lol

[Havet]

i didn't overlook it. i simply did not address it. for 2 reasons.

1) it's irrelevant. i never said the proprietor is obligated or should be forced to help the new person, and i never suggested that his property should be forcefully removed. i was simply pointing out an inconsistency in the self-ownership argument.

2) I kind of agree with you. my opinion is that individual autonomy should be the foremost goal of political, social and economic organization. the thought that the state or even a bunch of people with AK-47's could depose me of my legitimate property to serve the "greater good" is extremely undesirable to me. however, this means it is incredibly important for me to determine what constitutes legitimate property. right-libertarians say that self-ownership and by extension mixing your labor is a legitimate justification for property, and i am disputing that.

so what would you consider legitimate justification of property?


let's not do personal comments plz. if i do choose to not address parts of your argument, it's probably because they are irrelevant, just a reiteration of an earlier point, or are not a point of disagreement between us.

well, i think its best if we discuss them anyway, one of us might think the other is trying to escape the argument. But if its obvious its really irrelevant, i wont discuss it.



okay. but what is the distinction between feudalism (my island example) and slavery? do they not both violate individual autonomy and control over ones life?

and in anticipation of your next point:
Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.

The island example, which i don't regard as feudalism because "feudalism refers to a Medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) political system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_system) composed of a set of reciprocal legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) obligations among the warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior) nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), revolving around the three key concepts of lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord), vassals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal), and fiefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief).", does not violate individual autonomy, it strengthens it.

Would I have a claim to live in your house and eat your food simply because I would have nowhere else to go? I mean, it would be best if you were charitable, but nobody should force you at gunpoint to accept my request, because then there wouldn't be a point in one having property, and the person with the strongest force would will at any dispute, because we would be discussing needs, and people would be constantly stealing everything and hurting others to fulfill their needs.

like i said, you don't control my life by owning your house. its your house, you decide who you wish to enter it or not. You are not forcing me to stay there, you can just kick me out and leave me in the unowned street.

[IcarusAngel]

So then it's ok for me to come by your house and take your monitor? After all, you keep repeating you don't have a right to it...

There's a big difference between owning personal possessions, such as a monitor, and claiming to own an island because you "mixed your labor with it."

You're using a false analogy - which is not surprising as all capitalist arguments are fallacies.


You don't need to have a notion of self-ownership to perform actions. What I meant, and may have been misunderstood or badly expressed, is that without people recognizing that you own yourself, and with entities protecting people from others who did not recognize that, then we would have REAL slavery again.

Slavery was based on the idea that people could be owned. People who believe in self-ownership also believe you can transfer your ownership to slave holders, and thus be a "slave," since your body is ultimately property.

You could also be an involuntary slave if you owe a debt to someone. Of course, you have the ultimate decision to kill yourself, but that's what slavery is, forced into situations because of you're will.


to give you an example, take safety belts

"
Edward J. Hock invented the safety belt first used by the Ford Motor Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company) as standard equipment, while he was on active duty with the military as a flight instructor. In 1955 his idea was accepted by the naval authorities, and Hock was awarded $20.50 for his invention. The original schematic and blueprints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint) shows that he utilized scrap parachute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute) strapping to implement his idea. He was never awarded anything other than the $20.50 award, a letter of recognition, a picture with military "brass", and a newspaper article to his credit.

Safety belts are a good example. They were held back for years by the car companies because they were too expensive to produce.

The government had to get involved because the corporations were letting thousands of people die every year by not implementing safety belts.

And of course, the guy who invented them relied a system that has been generally protected by the government, the automoible industry.So who came first? government forcing safety belts or safety belts themselves?



everything that was done by individuals without any aid from the state or government is a FREE MARKET PRODUCT, because free market is - tadaaaa - the result of people being free to trade! See? that wasn't so hard.

You don't "trade" to come up with ideas but you work off of the basis of others. And it is the government that has constructed the rules to make the system itself possible.

Free market does not innovate?


Ever heard of Du Pont? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

They are a chemichal company which invented:
-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra


DuPont is a corporation that has always been receiving help and benefits from the government and they have also benefitted from government research.



If monopoly is sooooooooooooo efficient, why doesn't government take over the internet? Why not take over google?

They don't take it over because that is not how our system is based.


truth is, if government took over internet, forums like these, communist forums, would be forbidden by the government, and we would not be discussing this.

That's ridiculous. Roads exist, but they don't make the roads so that you can't get to say an anarchist bookstore.

It would be against the first amendment to ban sites like revleft - free-speech is a concept that has been around for years.




if people wanted safer cars with better gas milage people would buy them

People DID want the safe cars. The EV-1 for example was a highly popular car and the government of california was even going to mandate that so many of them be sold, but the car companies took them off the market because of they were mot as profitable to corporations.



no one would buy the unsafe ones and they would go out of business

Again, people did want safe cars but they were not being produced:

"The auto industry fought for decades to prevent mandatory seat-belts, air-bags and other critical safety features. Why? Because adding such life-saving devices cut into profits. "

Even though they could have been. Free-markets hold back technologies because of property rights (tragedy of the anti-commons) and market failues.

The automobile is just one examples of a market failure:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Marketfailures.htm



Business owners respond to DEMAND, so if thats what people want, thats where they'll get more profit.

This is not true in economics, or reality. Corporations can become so big that they shape the market as much as the market shapes them, and they respond to what makes them the most profit, not the greatest demand.

There might be a demand for TVs that be sold to a thousand people for $100, but it would be more profitable to charge $800 to sell it to 300 people.


The reason every car isn't electric, or hybrid, or hydrogen by now is because people are not looking for it enough so it compensates business owners to invest in their creation.

Lol. Which is why the government has to do it. But these car companies are already taking billions from the government, thus they should be forced to produce electric, which also has the added benefit of cutting down on externalities.


Net neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)doesn't exist

It's proposed, but it hasn't been passed yet

Net neutrality certainly does exist right now. It comes out of the fact of how the internet was designed - open standards. Right now, corporations do not regulate the traffic in such a way that certain sites have massive priority over other sites. However, they could possibly do that now because of the privatization of resources.



Except people are free to make other OS... that's called FREE MARKET!1

Example: Linux

Who regulated Linux into existance?

yeesh you are DENSE lol


Linux came into existence because of government research like everything else.

First there was multics, which was a government funded product. Then there was Unix, developed by free and open standards. And then there was Minix, which was used for academic purposes, and then there was Linux, which was developed at the University of Helsinski.

It was not the product of the "free-market" or an individual creator but also more of the system in general.

Programming of course borrowrs heavily from the intellectual ideas and foundations that go back centuries, such as mathematical principles.

So democracy, free-thinking, but also, governmental systems and Universities have a lot to do with things like Linux as well.

That is why Linux was released for free in the first place, because it was recognized that no one could have a copyright to it.

Nothing has ever been developed in a free-market and cannot be, Linux just further proves my case.

[Havet]

Lol

You give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

How do you think you own shit unless mixing your labor with it? The monitor is also a mixture of labor of resources - labor of the workers, machines, scientist that made it possible with the natural resources that were needed, like cathode ray tubes and liquid crystals.

And it's not some constitution that is going to prevent government from eliminating freedom of speech

If you had actually read what i posted about cars you would have found that

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

and that ONLY In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.

I'm not going to argue with someone who is not willing to accept reason and logic in the debate and only cares to defend his opinions whether they are true or not. All i have to say has been said and my arguments still stand.

You can keep on fantasizing and picking up arguments you like to justify points you enjoy. I would suggest you started looking at your own logic and to look at my arguments with logic and critical eye.

There is only one more thing I will say regarding this theme, in response to you. If i ever become a successfull business owner or millionaire by my own effort and 100 of your kind come with thirst for blood and to steal from me, to demand the unearned in the name of a morally corrupt philosophy, I won't give it up without a fight, and you will find what happens when force meets mind and force

[Nwoye]

so what would you consider legitimate justification of property?
i'm not sure. i like proudhon's argument for (against?) property. but i don't know if i would be ready to totally defend it.

anyway, we're talking about libertarianism and self-ownership here. not my political philosophy.


well, i think its best if we discuss them anyway, one of us might think the other is trying to escape the argument. But if its obvious its really irrelevant, i wont discuss it.fair enough.


The island example, which i don't regard as feudalism because "feudalism refers to a Medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) political system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_system) composed of a set of reciprocal legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) obligations among the warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior) nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility), revolving around the three key concepts of lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord), vassals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal), and fiefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief).", alright. i was using the term loosely.


does not violate individual autonomy, it strengthens it. how so?


Would I have a claim to live in your house and eat your food simply because I would have nowhere else to go? I mean, it would be best if you were charitable, but nobody should force you at gunpoint to accept my request, because then there wouldn't be a point in one having property, and the person with the strongest force would will at any dispute, because we would be discussing needs, and people would be constantly stealing everything and hurting others to fulfill their needs.

like i said, you don't control my life by owning your house. its your house, you decide who you wish to enter it or not. You are not forcing me to stay there, you can just kick me out and leave me in the unowned street.okay. i am not arguing for taxation or communitarian property rights or anything which you are suggesting. i have not proposed that someones legitimate property should be taken away. i am criticizing what is called by right-libertarians legitimate property. what i am arguing is that using self-ownership to justify private property, and enforcing this edict, eventually violates the original concept of self-ownership. all i'm trying to do is illustrate why right-libertarians rest their philosophy on a faulty premise, i'm not trying to justify redistributive taxation or anything of that sort. your criticism of forced charity (while valid) does not apply to my argument, because my argument has nothing to do with that.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol

You give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

Free-enterprise achieved nothing: the government has always played a role no matter what the system, including in America's corporate capitalism. When we had freer enterprise, monopolies existed like Standard oil, but even these were still government protected and funded.


How do you think you own shit unless mixing your labor with it? The monitor is also a mixture of labor of resources - labor of the workers, machines, scientist that made it possible with the natural resources that were needed, like cathode ray tubes and liquid crystals.

Right. So by your logic he also claims a certain "ownership" to the monitor, but the guy who actually came up with the scientific principles receives the short end of the stick: he receives less than the capitalist, who simply markets. Most capitalists know nothing about science and you've proven yourself no exception.


And it's not some constitution that is going to prevent government from eliminating freedom of speech

Yes, it is people enforcing the constitution, because the government ultimately depends upon the consent of the people.

I do not fail to admit though that people make bad decisions, like allowing capitalism and Nazism to go on.


If you had actually read what i posted about cars you would have found that

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

They were made standard because of government pressures and citizen activism; that shows that we don't need "corporations" to give us what we want, but that we can demand it ourselves.


I'm not going to argue with someone who is not willing to accept reason and logic in the debate and only cares to defend his opinions whether they are true or not. All i have to say has been said and my arguments still stand.

Your arguments have been proven incorrect. You have failed to show how the free-market has been responsible for all that is good in society whereas I have said that things that are good for society, like ideas, generally do not have property applied to them (and when they do it's only because of oppressive systems like capitalism trying to claim ideas as being their 'intellectual property').

Capitalism is anti-human.

[Havet]

i'm not sure. i like proudhon's argument for (against?) property. but i don't know if i would be ready to totally defend it.

anyway, we're talking about libertarianism and self-ownership here. not my political philosophy.

Well, since now we've touched property rights itself, you don't need to defend, just state what it defends.


okay. i am not arguing for taxation or communitarian property rights or anything which you are suggesting. i have not proposed that someones legitimate property should be taken away. i am criticizing what is called by right-libertarians legitimate property. what i am arguing is that using self-ownership to justify private property, and enforcing this edict, eventually violates the original concept of self-ownership. all i'm trying to do is illustrate why right-libertarians rest their philosophy on a faulty premise, i'm not trying to justify redistributive taxation or anything of that sort. your criticism of forced charity (while valid) does not apply to my argument, because my argument has nothing to do with that.

So then one more reason for you to state what you think is legitimate property.

Self-ownership does not contradict itself. All the examples people around here have claimed, that a person in debt would have to surrender his body, or that someone would come for their final piece of property are false: the person may be in debt, and she will have to pay the other back, but not with her body. Self-ownership does not justify slavery, theft and murder, it opposes it.

[Nwoye]

Well, since now we've touched property rights itself, you don't need to defend, just state what it defends.
I'll skip his critique of conventional private property for now but will expand on it if you'd like.

his justification for property:

the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius.
He basically justifies property through possession. We all should claim as property what we naturally possess during life - food, land to live on, your basic possessions, a place to work, etc. He also says that in order for property to be legitimate, it must have equality for its condition. That basically means that you do not have the right to claim ownership over land someone else needs for survival, or for basic necessities. To put it simply, he opposes absentee ownership and excluding someone from unused land.

Now there are obvious problems with this, mainly that it suffers from the same critique which dooms John Locke's property proviso.

However, my goal is individual autonomy and liberty. In my opinion, equal access to property is a key i achieving these goals.



Self-ownership does not contradict itself. All the examples people around here have claimed, that a person in debt would have to surrender his body, or that someone would come for their final piece of property are false: the person may be in debt, and she will have to pay the other back, but not with her body. Self-ownership does not justify slavery, theft and murder, it opposes it.
but i just gave you a situation where people obtaining property through their own expression of self-ownership deprived someone else of theirs. therefore, concept of self-ownership is not able to be universally applied - making it illegitimate.

[Havet]

I'll skip his critique of conventional private property for now but will expand on it if you'd like.

his justification for property:
the place that each one occupies is called his own; that is, it is a place possessed, not a place appropriated. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius.
He basically justifies property through possession. We all should claim as property what we naturally possess during life - food, land to live on, your basic possessions, a place to work, etc. He also says that in order for property to be legitimate, it must have equality for its condition. That basically means that you do not have the right to claim ownership over land someone else needs for survival, or for basic necessities. To put it simply, he opposes absentee ownership and excluding someone from unused land.

Now there are obvious problems with this, mainly that it suffers from the same critique which dooms John Locke's property proviso.

However, my goal is individual autonomy and liberty. In my opinion, equal access to property is a key i achieving these goals.

Equality cannot be achieved without restricting liberty. Unless you are only referring to equality under law, which could be achieved under a free society, every other equality cannot be achieved without stealing from others to compensate for the unequals.


but i just gave you a situation where people obtaining property through their own expression of self-ownership deprived someone else of theirs. therefore, concept of self-ownership is not able to be universally applied - making it illegitimate.

But whenever you have ANY property that means someone else DOESN'T. The fact you own a computer means someone else doesn't. The fact you own food means everybody else won't eat that food. This is in accordance with the law of identity, and that thing are what they are. You cannot eat a cake and have it too. Self-ownership merely recognizes someone as an individual which is responsible for his body and his possessions.

[IcarusAngel]

But whenever you have ANY property that means someone else DOESN'T. The fact you own a computer means someone else doesn't. The fact you own food means everybody else won't eat that food. This is in accordance with the law of identity, and that thing are what they are. You cannot eat a cake and have it too. Self-ownership merely recognizes someone as an individual which is responsible for his body and his possessions.

This guy just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

Just because I "own" a computer, doesn't mean someone else couldn't own it too. Two people could own a computer, and there are many examples of such ownership in society such as joint stock companies and co-partners.

Second, the law of idendity has nothing to do with it. c = c, but also, a + b = c, or a * b = c, considering a = 5 and b = 5 or a = 5 and b = 2.

Apparently rand taught that all of mathematics boils down to A = A, which is now known not to be true in mathematics.

Third, we are not responsible for our own bodies. We do not control them completely, such as our heart rate, and other things that are the effects of evolutions. We are complex creatures who have some control, but not complete control. But we have some control over many things, and that doesn't mean we "own" them either, anyway.

[Havet]

Just because I "own" a computer, doesn't mean someone else couldn't own it too. Two people could own a computer, and there are many examples of such ownership in society such as joint stock companies and co-partners. That's right, people can share things and use them both by common agreement. Apparently i missed that possibility. That doesn't mean people should be forced to share things, and that they have no right to own things individually

If i decide to not share my computer, then someone is deprived of it. Do I then don't have any legitimate reason to own it? If not, why?


Second, the law of idendity has nothing to do with it. c = c, but also, a + b = c, or a * b = c, considering a = 5 and b = 5 or a = 5 and b = 2.

Apparently rand taught that all of mathematics boils down to A = A, which is now known not to be true in mathematics.So can you mathematically prove that A =/= A?


Third, we are not responsible for our own bodies. We do not control them completely, such as our heart rate, and other things that are the effects of evolutions. We are complex creatures who have some control, but not complete control. But we have some control over many things, and that doesn't mean we "own" them either, anyway.If you don't own your heart rate, then surely you won't oppose me changing it, by the use of medicine?

Evolution has granted us many unconscious actions. But we have conscious actions as well. You are responsible for your own body in the sense that it is you who decide what gets in (food, drugs, etc) and its you who control your body's actions (movement, for example), so you are responsible for the effects you cause outside your body (picking up a rock, eating a banana, stealing, etc)

Actually I don't get whats your point with all this. of course we have involuntary actions (breathing for example). What has that got to do with this? You are still in control of the actions that enable your body to, for example, murder, steal and enslave others. Those are the actions that count, since those are the actions that have a negative effect on others. This is why people can't go around killing everyone and then saying they "don't control their bodies".

[Nwoye]

Equality cannot be achieved without restricting liberty. Unless you are only referring to equality under law, which could be achieved under a free society, every other equality cannot be achieved without stealing from others to compensate for the unequals.
when he says equality he doesn't mean "everyone makes X amount of money" he means there is equal access to property. Proudhon doesn't have a problem with inequalities in income (he supports markets) but he doesn't support the excluding people from property. (btw, when i say property here, i mean land to live and work on, things like that.)

also, as to your "it restricts liberty" argument, i would say that equal access to property only enhances liberty.


But whenever you have ANY property that means someone else DOESN'T. The fact you own a computer means someone else doesn't. The fact you own food means everybody else won't eat that food. This is in accordance with the law of identity, and that thing are what they are. You cannot eat a cake and have it too. Self-ownership merely recognizes someone as an individual which is responsible for his body and his possessions.
let me rephrase: i just gave you a situation where people obtaining property through their own expression of self-ownership deprived someone else of ownership over themselves.

[Havet]

when he says equality he doesn't mean "everyone makes X amount of money" he means there is equal access to property. Proudhon doesn't have a problem with inequalities in income (he supports markets) but he doesn't support the excluding people from property. (btw, when i say property here, i mean land to live and work on, things like that.)

also, as to your "it restricts liberty" argument, i would say that equal access to property only enhances liberty.

If by equal access to property you mean everyone can, by their own effort, be free to engage in trade until they can accumulate enough to aquire a certain piece of proprty they wish to own, then I agree. Any other way requires that some produce for those who only consume. How can one NOT exclude people from property unless everyone owns everything, which is a pretty bad way of managing things, since there will be always clash of interests on how things are managed and to what purpose, which is what we say everyday in countries where they have many services provided for the state: some want schooling to teach X, others to teach Y, some want healthcare to provide X, others Y, others Z, others want government spend a lot of money and go into more debt, others don't, etc etc etc

How can you enhance liberty while restricting liberty? If you own a house and someone you don't know comes and demands a right to live in your house, then by your logic you should eb froced (hence going against your liberty) to share your house with him.



let me rephrase: i just gave you a situation where people obtaining property through their own expression of self-ownership deprived someone else of ownership over themselves.

And the fact you own a house means you are depriving me of being in that house, if you don't wish to share it with me. Imagine i want to live with you but not contribute to helping around the house. By your logic, I should be able to live in your house, merely because you have it and I don't...

[Nwoye]

If by equal access to property you mean everyone can, by their own effort, be free to engage in trade until they can accumulate enough to aquire a certain piece of proprty they wish to own, then I agree. Any other way requires that some produce for those who only consume. How can one NOT exclude people from property unless everyone owns everything, which is a pretty bad way of managing things, since there will be always clash of interests on how things are managed and to what purpose, which is what we say everyday in countries where they have many services provided for the state: some want schooling to teach X, others to teach Y, some want healthcare to provide X, others Y, others Z, others want government spend a lot of money and go into more debt, others don't, etc etc etc

How can you enhance liberty while restricting liberty? If you own a house and someone you don't know comes and demands a right to live in your house, then by your logic you should eb froced (hence going against your liberty) to share your house with him.
let me give you an example.

suppose i live on in a tent on a plot of land out in the country. for whatever reason, i move, and find another place to live. now, i have a place to live, and there is an empty plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. under capitalism, i could shoot anyone who went on that land, simply because i "own" it. under proudhon's vision, i would no longer own that original plot of land, and anyone who needed a place to live could obtain it. however, someone could not come in and take my current plot of land, the one i am currently possessing.


And the fact you own a house means you are depriving me of being in that house, if you don't wish to share it with me. Imagine i want to live with you but not contribute to helping around the house. By your logic, I should be able to live in your house, merely because you have it and I don't...oof. look, are you trying to be obtuse here? i apologize for being a dick but god dammit. i am not presenting a normative philosophy, and i am not trying to justify any specific form of property rights. all i am doing is pointing out an inconsistency in the theory of self-ownership and in the right-libertarian theory of property.

i understand that the very nature of possessing property is excluding someone else from doing the same, with that specific piece of property. however, even if you own a bike (meaning i can't own that bike), i can still go out and buy a different one. the point i am making, is someone expressing ownership over themselves by obtaining property can violate someone else's ownership over themselves. therefore the theory is not applicable to all situations.

if you're going to ignore my point then we can move on and consider the discussion over.

[Havet]

let me give you an example.

suppose i live on in a tent on a plot of land out in the country. for whatever reason, i move, and find another place to live. now, i have a place to live, and there is an empty plot of land out in the middle of nowhere. under capitalism, i could shoot anyone who went on that land, simply because i "own" it. under proudhon's vision, i would no longer own that original plot of land, and anyone who needed a place to live could obtain it. however, someone could not come in and take my current plot of land, the one i am currently possessing.

According to, not capitalism, but the current method of "finders-keepers" property rights, the land you once occupied would indeed be yours. However, such system is ineffective. I would only consider that land which you occupied yours if you mixed your labor with it, that is, if you built, planted or changed in any manner the value of the land. Therefore, the land would be a product of your labor and, therefore, yours. I think I can agree with proudhon's vision, only if when you left the space it were empty. If you had kept your labor at one place, would a man be entitled to use it without your permission simply because he needed it? What if it were a criminal, escaping from the reality that he has enslaved, stolen or murdered someone? Would you accept he would use your labor without your consent?

I believe it is one's owner who should decide whom to let inside his property, whether empty (house) or not, based on whatever reasons and motives he held as right. Property and personal possessions are not yours if you cannot decide whom you let use them.

In your specific example, you had not changed the value of the land (and purposesly destroying a land would not count as yours, you would have to repay the damage to those who wished to use it afterwards in case you had not actually created labor from the land) therefore someone can use your tent. I think we can both agree on proudhon's property claims on this.

There is also no conflict on self-ownership under proudhon's vision, because you would still be able to keep your labor as your property, and the land you once used but left with nothing would not be considered your property.


i understand that the very nature of possessing property is excluding someone else from doing the same, with that specific piece of property. however, even if you own a bike (meaning i can't own that bike), i can still go out and buy a different one. the point i am making, is someone expressing ownership over themselves by obtaining property can violate someone else's ownership over themselves. therefore the theory is not applicable to all situations.

if you're going to ignore my point then we can move on and consider the discussion over.I'm not trying to be obtuse, but i don't think i'm getting your exact point with your bike example. Perhaps you could explain a little better? Maybe I have already adressed it in what I posted above. By making a direct analogy with your bike example, I could claim the same as you: Even if you own land (meaning I can't own that land), I can still go out and get a different plot of land, by mixing my labor with it. What if all the land is taken? That can also be applied for your bike example: What if all the materials are already used in other things so that it is impossible to make a bike?

[RGacky3]

According to, not capitalism, but the current method of "finders-keepers" property rights, the land you once occupied would indeed be yours. However, such system is ineffective. I would only consider that land which you occupied yours if you mixed your labor with it, that is, if you built, planted or changed in any manner the value of the land. Therefore, the land would be a product of your labor and, therefore, yours. I think I can agree with proudhon's vision, only if when you left the space it were empty. If you had kept your labor at one place, would a man be entitled to use it without your permission simply because he needed it? What if it were a criminal, escaping from the reality that he has enslaved, stolen or murdered someone? Would you accept he would use your labor without your consent?

I believe it is one's owner who should decide whom to let inside his property, whether empty (house) or not, based on whatever reasons and motives he held as right. Property and personal possessions are not yours if you cannot decide whom you let use them.

In your specific example, you had not changed the value of the land (and purposesly destroying a land would not count as yours, you would have to repay the damage to those who wished to use it afterwards in case you had not actually created labor from the land) therefore someone can use your tent. I think we can both agree on proudhon's property claims on this.

There is also no conflict on self-ownership under proudhon's vision, because you would still be able to keep your labor as your property, and the land you once used but left with nothing would not be considered your property.

So lets say you pass it down to your kid, who does'nt work on it, but who hires someone to work on it. At that point the hired worker has more right to the land than the kid right?

[Nwoye]

According to, not capitalism, but the current method of "finders-keepers" property rights, the land you once occupied would indeed be yours. However, such system is ineffective. I would only consider that land which you occupied yours if you mixed your labor with it, that is, if you built, planted or changed in any manner the value of the land. Therefore, the land would be a product of your labor and, therefore, yours. I think I can agree with proudhon's vision, only if when you left the space it were empty. If you had kept your labor at one place, would a man be entitled to use it without your permission simply because he needed it? What if it were a criminal, escaping from the reality that he has enslaved, stolen or murdered someone? Would you accept he would use your labor without your consent?

I believe it is one's owner who should decide whom to let inside his property, whether empty (house) or not, based on whatever reasons and motives he held as right. Property and personal possessions are not yours if you cannot decide whom you let use them.

In your specific example, you had not changed the value of the land (and purposesly destroying a land would not count as yours, you would have to repay the damage to those who wished to use it afterwards in case you had not actually created labor from the land) therefore someone can use your tent. I think we can both agree on proudhon's property claims on this.

There is also no conflict on self-ownership under proudhon's vision, because you would still be able to keep your labor as your property, and the land you once used but left with nothing would not be considered your property.

i see i see. to be honest, the whole notion of property is very unsatisfactory to me. i mean if you view property or land as an abundance than anything works, but when you use isolated examples of scarce conditions then everything becomes shady.

now as to what you're saying, with the whole "mixing your labor" argument, i think you're ignoring locke's proviso. Locke said that you could claim land as yours so long as you left enough as good for others. however, i don't think that can reasonably be fulfilled.
A may appropriate as much land as he wants only if he leaves enough and as good for others. Suppose A takes half, then. Now others come along, and each can appropriate only if she leaves enough and as good for others. So B can take half of the half left by A, C half of the half left by B, D half the half left by C, and so on through the alphabet. It is easy to see that evenutally there will not be enough left for some person, Z. Z can then complain that X did not leave enough and as good, so X's appropriation was illegitimate. But if so, then Y did not leave enough and as good for X, and so on all the way back up the alphabet to A. This seems to show that it will be impossible to meet the Lockean Proviso, since it will be impossible, no matter how little A takes, to leave "enough and as good" for others.
Robert Nozick goes from here to justify property if you "make no one worse off" but that's kind of strange in my opinion. i mean how can you even be granted the authority to make such a decision?

anyway, i don't think "mixing your labor" as a justification for property in land is very strong, so i still think your example doesn't hold up. if person A left that original plot of land and found a new one than he can't lay claim to it anymore. but it's nice to see some common ground.


I'm not trying to be obtuse, but i don't think i'm getting your exact point with your bike example. Perhaps you could explain a little better? Maybe I have already adressed it in what I posted above. By making a direct analogy with your bike example, I could claim the same as you: Even if you own land (meaning I can't own that land), I can still go out and get a different plot of land, by mixing my labor with it. What if all the land is taken? That can also be applied for your bike example: What if all the materials are already used in other things so that it is impossible to make a bike?my point was that self-ownership is not applicable to all situations. and as you've pointed out, the very notion of private property and individual autonomy coexisting is not applicable to all situations.

well property by its very nature is this way. it's a tricky thing. in my opinion we should obviously aim for equal access to property, it being something necessary for basic human existence. to me that means possession = property in land, and labor = property in commodities/items. if you take this approach and apply then i think it works in almost all situations. when it doesn't work (not enough land) i would support a land value tax like Henry George proposed.

[Havet]

So lets say you pass it down to your kid, who does'nt work on it, but who hires someone to work on it. At that point the hired worker has more right to the land than the kid right?

No he does not. Your argument is claiming people do not have a right to inherit wealth. By what standard?

Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among those who do not earnt it; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune.



Robert Nozick goes from here to justify property if you "make no one worse off" but that's kind of strange in my opinion. i mean how can you even be granted the authority to make such a decision?

That's right, it sounds inconsistent to me as well


anyway, i don't think "mixing your labor" as a justification for property in land is very strong, so i still think your example doesn't hold up. if person A left that original plot of land and found a new one than he can't lay claim to it anymore. but it's nice to see some common ground.

Actually, I would like to show you some interesting arguments an agorist talked to be about, when discussing land ownership:

"general concept of property is wrong. Property is the consequence of your action. If your action is to build a house, you own the resulting house. If your action is to burn down a house, you own the ashes. If it was not your house, then you now owe somebody whatever it takes to build a house, including time and materials and knowhow, or something of equal value to them."

"Land is not the consequence of anyone's action. It's just already there. If you fertilize the dirt, you can say you own the dirt, but if that's the case then once the effects of fertilizer are gone, your title to that dirt goes away, because your action goes away. Any crops still in that dirt are yours, but the dirt itself is nobody's. It costs you nothing in time or effort if you lose that land once the crops are gone. All you did was fertilize it, and that was taken up as the crops. The land was, effectively, always there. Likewise is space. You cannot own space. It was simply (effectively) always there. You can move through space, and occupy additional space, but it is not yours, space is not a consequence of your action. You could say that if somebody else is occupying space that you made from useless space into usable space, they are invading your space, but this doesn't apply at all in tresspassing (where the space was already usable for walking upon long before humans got there), applies marginally in cases of enclosing space in a house, and only applies fully in situations like towers, tunnels, space stations, artificial islands, etc. And in these cases, if you find that another person got to the same place in a different way, your claim has nothing over theirs. If your tunnel meets theirs under your house, so long as your house remains standing and your tunnel undamaged, you can't say they are in your space."

"You did not buy the land. If you did, you bought it from somebody who didn't own it, and thus didn't legitimately come into ownership of it. You bought a house. As long as your house isn't damaged, what goes on around it or beneath it doesn't matter."

Tell me your thoughts on this kind of arguments.


well property by its very nature is this way. it's a tricky thing. in my opinion we should obviously aim for equal access to property, it being something necessary for basic human existence. to me that means possession = property in land, and labor = property in commodities/items. if you take this approach and apply then i think it works in almost all situations. when it doesn't work (not enough land) i would support a land value tax like Henry George proposed.

As long as the equal access of property doesn't mean stealing, enslaving or murdering others then fine by me. That kind of land value tax accounts as theft though. I still cannot seem to grasp your point that everyone who needed land should be given one simply because it is necessary for survival. Well so is food. But by giving food to anyone who claims he needs it, this would give people more incentive to not work, since their needs and their survival would be given. But then, who would produce the food? In the food example, it seems it would quickly collapse.

What about land? land cannot be produced, it is already there. If there is not enough land for everyone, i don't think the case of expropriating some to give to others is very rational, because then you are creating the same problem elsewhere. Like i said, If you could explain how to grant this "equal opportunity to land" without stealing, enslaving or murdering others then it would be an interesting proposal.

[Nwoye]

Actually, I would like to show you some interesting arguments an agorist talked to be about, when discussing land ownership:

"general concept of property is wrong. Property is the consequence of your action. If your action is to build a house, you own the resulting house. If your action is to burn down a house, you own the ashes. If it was not your house, then you now owe somebody whatever it takes to build a house, including time and materials and knowhow, or something of equal value to them."

"Land is not the consequence of anyone's action. It's just already there. If you fertilize the dirt, you can say you own the dirt, but if that's the case then once the effects of fertilizer are gone, your title to that dirt goes away, because your action goes away. Any crops still in that dirt are yours, but the dirt itself is nobody's. It costs you nothing in time or effort if you lose that land once the crops are gone. All you did was fertilize it, and that was taken up as the crops. The land was, effectively, always there. Likewise is space. You cannot own space. It was simply (effectively) always there. You can move through space, and occupy additional space, but it is not yours, space is not a consequence of your action. You could say that if somebody else is occupying space that you made from useless space into usable space, they are invading your space, but this doesn't apply at all in tresspassing (where the space was already usable for walking upon long before humans got there), applies marginally in cases of enclosing space in a house, and only applies fully in situations like towers, tunnels, space stations, artificial islands, etc. And in these cases, if you find that another person got to the same place in a different way, your claim has nothing over theirs. If your tunnel meets theirs under your house, so long as your house remains standing and your tunnel undamaged, you can't say they are in your space."

"You did not buy the land. If you did, you bought it from somebody who didn't own it, and thus didn't legitimately come into ownership of it. You bought a house. As long as your house isn't damaged, what goes on around it or beneath it doesn't matter."

Tell me your thoughts on this kind of arguments.
hmmm. i agreed with all of it except for that bolded part. that's kind of a strange argument. if it says that land should not be owned, yet it should be labored upon, it seems to suggest a Land Value Tax - a tax which only taxed land value and left improvements untouched. George proposed it believing that one had the rightful claim to a house built upon land but not the land itself - just like your agorist friend.

i guess it depends on what his application of that conclusion would entail.


As long as the equal access of property doesn't mean stealing, enslaving or murdering others then fine by me.i'm not sure what i think of wealth redistribution. i guess it comes down to a belief in the social contract theory or of Marx's theory of social wealth vs. self ownership theory.


That kind of land value tax accounts as theft though.well George's argument was to make common property. He thought the best way to do this would be to enact a tax on land value for all people who claimed the right to exclude other people from land they didn't have a rightful claim to. Now i would really only support it in instances where there was not enough land to go around (meaning proudhon or locke's justification could not hold true) or where there was a government which needed revenue. I mean given the choice between an income tax or a land tax I would support the latter in a heartbeat. it's much more efficient and equitable.


I still cannot seem to grasp your point that everyone who needed land should be given one simply because it is necessary for survival. Well so is food. But by giving food to anyone who claims he needs it, this would give people more incentive to not work, since their needs and their survival would be given. But then, who would produce the food? In the food example, it seems it would quickly collapse.with commodities or normal items i'm starting to come around to the theory that labor is a legitimate justification for ownership.


What about land? land cannot be produced, it is already there. If there is not enough land for everyone, i don't think the case of expropriating some to give to others is very rational, because then you are creating the same problem elsewhere. Like i said, If you could explain how to grant this "equal opportunity to land" without stealing, enslaving or murdering others then it would be an interesting proposal.i think proudhon's justification implies it. i mean it's pretty undeniable that there is enough room in the world for 6 billion people, or enough room in the united states for 300 million people. problems arise when people claim rights to land they don't use, primarily for the purpose of speculation. if property (in land) was reserved to use and occupation then there wouldn't be rent sharks or share-cropping or things of that nature. everyone would have access to land to live on and work on, fo' free.

[Octobox]

Capitalist property rights only exist because of the government

Icarus -- Wealthy people (in a free-market) would not have much vested interest in property in the "long-run" -- I do however, agree with you in part.

Property Rights (in a 100% free-market) require at the very least a mediator and a private security firm to enforce the right or to penalize against a misuse/abuse (from say a neighbor). I think property rights and their protection would eventually disappear in a truly free-market anarchy -- We know for a fact that the only oscillating profit driver in a "free-society" (America is a Corporatist or Economic Fascist Society -- as she stands now) is entrepreneurialism or intrapreneurialism -- without any form of protectionism, the former are the only "profit bursts." In Market Anarchy there is not much profit in tying your assets up in a business (there's start-up capital, innovation capital, and sale capital). Thus, holding property/revenue generator for too long would not be a wise use of one’s assets.

Also, in Market Anarchy there are no employees. An employee is defined by law (social security tax, other wage withholdings, gov't forced health care, and workmen's comp as a basis) -- in a free-society the "employer" does not pay any of these. Thus the "worker" is self-contracting (self-rule and self-defended). Once the start-up capital is made ("profit burst") if there are no innovations during normal business and without any barriers to entry the business will move through it's twilight very quickly -- if it has any remaining start-up niche left the last profit-burst will come at the sale.

Monopolies last even shorter periods of time – as investors pull out to find faster moving revenue, whole divisions are sold off and the monopoly returns to “normative” size.

Innovation and Entrepreneurialism almost always come from the poor and middle-class – These are the property owners (property is a slow inflator in a free-society – it's increase in value would be no faster than free-money -- commodity backed currency). Wealthy people would be hunting for the next best poor to middle income generated idea -- Only the hungry mind can create and innovate. Satiated wealthy minds can only look to increase their wealth.

I'm assuming that no one forces wealth (theft) -- Also, I'm assuming we are moving from where we are now (as a society - America) toward a purely free-market. A transition would have to take place -- maybe after 50 or 100 years (or more) we'd arrive at some un-known utopia (communal-anarchism or something). Our sense of ownership would not disolve by force or by voluntarism. It would shift and become more profitable in some areas and less than others. Without Gov't Force. There would still be some kind of theft force (police) and it would work for the mediators -- somehow. Unless you are imagining that we become instantly enlighted and move into a communal utopia with no transition? Employers would be bound to workers and not the other way around -- The contract would be one of need (employer needs) and contractor provides -- the capital transfer would be held by a mediator (in advance), when work is completed assets are transferred. With technology an employer would only be able to rip-off a contractor once and his reputation would be tarnished.


Dictators exist by declaring entire nations stations to be their 'property', of which they are the private owners. (See: Politics: A Very Short Introduction.)

Agreed!



It is not necessarily the corporations that require bailouts, but the system itself that needs to be "shot in the arm" and to have the government perform certain actions to help stimulate the economy. This is a basis of even mainstream economics and it's certainly well known in political science and sociology.

This was "invented" by Keynes -- Tax Theft and Fiat Credit are what cause the business cycles -- it is a debt system and wealth transference (from the poor to the wealthy) -- it is economic fascism when a corporation (wealthy individual / individuals) turn to gov't to compensate when consumers decide to spend less on their product. I look at spending as a daily-dollar-vote and corporatism as "ballot stuffing" -- economically speaking, hahahaha.



Thus, since capitalist property relations cannot exist without the state, anarcho-capitalism can never be said to be considered a valid form of anarchism.

I agree -- in essence. I think all forms of anarchism will exist -- motivated by living conditions. Tribal-Anarchism will naturally arise in population areas where a small community might be separated from the next by a few miles (or more) of open land. I imagine townships or something (500 to 1500 people) with open grass land in-between the next. Tribal-Anarchism could develop during periods of innovative pirate schemas. Pirates help to innovate self-defense – the advantage goes back and forth until zero-abdication is reached – then the pirates move on. Some people without cops or national guard or military will bond together to protect home and family. Within the tribal-like "housing-division" (likely gated) there will be free-trade, mediators, and private contractors within these villages -- there will be contract law to keep the peace between close proximity neighbors. Outside this community in rural areas (where pirating is less a concern) people might live more by the free-market model (barter - trade - counter-economics) all to bring advantage to the individual or temporary unions -- nevertheless some form of contract law (mediators) would be needed when these folks needed to trade within the tribal-anarchy. If you stand on your own you have to guard and protect your own property. Furthermore, in a high density city (like San Francisco) where erected gated communities might be difficult a more complex social structure might be needed -- maybe a form of Minarchism would develop. Those folks that do not mind to pay a little (tax theft) for protection – jails – and emergency rooms. Anything preventative or reactive on a large enough scale must be paid for in advanced – therefore a small sales tax or something might be collected.

[Minarchism in this sense means rule-of-law, some preventative services, very small taxation, and mostly free-market-anarchy] -- It is voluntary for those that one to live in the larger cities -- there's never been a major city in all history living completely voluntary (from miniarchism to dictatorship to kingship to monarchy to democracy-socialis-communism -- never "free"]

The above might all fit under Tribal-Anarchy as it is identical to how the Indians lived – anarchy between the tribes, using mediators to broker deals – in some larger tribes there was even taxation. It would all be voluntary and you could switch communities as you see fit.

I guess my argument is that in a free-society there is room for several views on property and during varying periods of food or technological production/innovation one might prove wiser (more profitable) than another.

I'm partially agreeing with you in the sense that Anarcho-Cap cannot last long in a truly free-society -- in fact it only exists in mediation - it's a short-run ideology -- it's contractual agreements made with a mediator (that's the whole of it - everything else is just tribal-anarchy or minarchism). It's like a referee during a basketball game or gambling on street ball. There's a guy (very respected) who holds the money and decides the game. Anarcho-Cap would start and end with every contractual arrangement -- since profit-drivers are made in the short-run.


Name one thing ever developed entirely out of the free-market.

We've never had a free-market -- Not ever! A free-market exists without gov't interventionism, fiat credit, tax breaks, or regulatory advantages. You can't have a free-market simultaneously with Banking Cartels and Big Gov't. A "free-market" is a theory that has never been seen in practice. There may have been a century or two in India (in certain provinces) where there was zero intervention and zero taxation, I'd have to ask my Indian friend (India - Dots not Feathers).


Microsoft was able to make so much money because Unix itself was tied up in intellectual property disputes. Had AT&T or another corporation been able to standardize it and declare it their intellectual property maybe Unix would be the standard OS used on everybody's computers. The problem was that there numerous corporations all claiming Unix their "property" (not just 'intellectual property') and thus creating too many standards for it to be used efficiently. Developers had to use DOS just to get anything done.

Individuals innovate – they need startup capital or some kind of monetary support to do so – this can happen just as easily in a free-market. Assets are Assets. Most wealthy people have vast amounts of money tied up in Corporatist Firms (backed by gov’t) – there was no assets nor anyone crazy enough to invest in computer technology (at a level that could handle all innovation) -- it's just not where wealthy people were tying up their money. And "tied up money" is my whole point in a corporatist society -- money can go long in such a society -- in a free-society wealth is generated in the short-run. The long-run was for the poor and middle-class (the entrepreneurs). Warren Buffet held no Microsoft stock – Nor IBM back then. With no money from the private sector an innovator had only one opportunity and that was through Gov’t Universities or Gov’t Fascist Corporations.


AT&T itself was actually responsible for many innovations as a monopoly, and the "freer-market" has only succeeded in creating more complicated 'family plans' and re-inventing the wheel. In fact, they've only succeeded in creating other large corporations who also receive billions from the government, now the government has to fund all of them.

AT&T -- Monopolies can only exist (in the medium to long-run) in a Corporatist Society -- They must seek tax theft, fiat credit, regulatory advantages, land theft, water rights, and tax breaks -- all at the expense of the consumer / individual. Their barriers to entry (few competitors) does not make them innovative -- we'll never know what the "free-market" would have brought because of all the theft (et al).


C, C++, mobile and cell phone development, and transistors, were done with AT&T corporate/government research.

Individuals developed these -- while working for AT&T. AT&T is a Fascist Corporation propped up by Big Gov't – or by theft.


There are similar stories in every industry. The aeronautical industry was once run practically run by the government. The agricultural industry receives enormous funds from the government. The telecommunications industry had the government help them implement their whole system, and now they want to "privatize" it.

We will never see the innovation that might have come had these Fiat Corps never existed -- Perhaps we would have been 100's of years more advanced. Again -- Individuals develop - innovate -- not corporations. The same things could have been developed in the private market. Saying a monopoly stole enough money from the public and hired the best individuals does not make your argument.


In fact, in general, the government has historically spent half of the expenditures of all R&D, the rest come from government protected and sanctioned corporations and Universities.

Same argument (plus one): if these individuals were 100% dependent on competitive markets they may have been more innovative then they were -- they would of needed to. This reminds me of Tucker and some of the innovations he came up with but was blocked by the Welfarist Corps. Or Tesla, perhaps. Many others.


So, why would any sane person want to privatize anything at all, like computers and the internet (an entirely government funded product) are now privatized, just so that monopolies can sit on their hands and avoid creation and creativity, and just so corporations alone can profit off of the hard work of everybody, charging 60+ dollars for basic internet access?

Monopolies can only exist in a Corporatist Society -- They can never exist in any form of Anarchist Society; not in the medium to long-run.


Octobox

[RGacky3]

No he does not. Your argument is claiming people do not have a right to inherit wealth. By what standard?

That conflicts with your statement about how property becomes property.


I would only consider that land which you occupied yours if you mixed your labor with it, that is, if you built, planted or changed in any manner the value of the land. Therefore, the land would be a product of your labor and, therefore, yours. I think I can agree with proudhon's vision, only if when you left the space it were empty.

Clearly the standard is mixing land with labor, which throws out inheretence, and which makes wage slavery unjustified which eventually unjustifieds private property. So youve got a contradiction, is it labor that makes it property or is it not?

[Havet]

That conflicts with your statement about how property becomes property.

Not at all. Once one creates labor and owns it, he should be free to decide what he wants to do with it: destroy it, trade it or give it away with no material compensation..




Clearly the standard is mixing land with labor, which throws out inheretence, and which makes wage slavery unjustified which eventually unjustifieds private property. So youve got a contradiction, is it labor that makes it property or is it not?

the workers that were hired to make that factory do not own the factory because the land had been bought before. This is clearly inconsistent, however we cannot remedy it by destroying everything, or stealing or murdering or enslaving.

In case of land which has not been built upon, I can find the land and since I may not have the means to built it alone in certain timeframe, I hire people who have the knowledge of how to build in return of money, so I now own the factory, even though it was not a DIRECT product of my labor, I had to produce the labor (money) in order to pay for someone else to built it (workers).

Of course workers themselves could decide to get to another land instead and build the factory by themselves so that they can effectively own it, because it was their labor (in this case, directly), that produced it.

In case of land where it has been built upon, I am open to suggestions, even though I will reject any option that includes theft, murder or enslavement.

[RGacky3]

You did'nt explain why inheritence does'nt conflict with your justification.


I had to produce the labor (money) in order to pay for someone else to built it (workers).


In this hypothetical situation where does this guy get the money from? Remember this is a justificatio of property which means it must start from scratch.

[Havet]

You did'nt explain why inheritence does'nt conflict with your justification.

I did, but you were too kind on evading it

"Not at all. Once one creates labor and owns it, he should be free to decide what he wants to do with it: destroy it, trade it or give it away with no material compensation..
"
Which means, it is RIGHT for a person who owns property to decide WHOM he gives it too. This means it is right for someone to decide whom he gives a heritage. Which means Inheritance is justified by that kind of property rights.


In this hypothetical situation where does this guy get the money from? Remember this is a justificatio of property which means it must start from scratch.

I came from somewhere. I some knowledge. No matter how low, I can, at my lowest, sell my physical force to do the most basic of jobs. This is the basic form of producing wealth. If i have more knowledge, I can obtain more wealth by the better use of my mind, and from the better understanding of the world around me.

[trivas7]

Once one creates labor and owns it [...]
This is exactly what isn't allowed under capitalism.

[Havet]

This is exactly what isn't allowed under capitalism.

You agreed to trade physical force for an amount of X money agreed by both parties. You work, you receive money. Money is, thus, your labor.

You cannot get a job because you do not agree with only receiving X for your labor? Work only enough to raise enough money for the following:
-self-employment
-creation of worker based firm
-buying the current firm with organization between workers.
- live of your own land. "the poorest places have the most land. nearly everyone in africa owns large amounts of land. same with china. In fact, in china people sell large farm land to go move to a small city apartment because theres more money involved."

on buying the firm, here is how it could be done


why cannot a bunch of workers of a company save enough money for enough time so they can buy +50% share of the company that owns where they work? after that, the company would be theirs to do as they please. They could make a cooperative, a commune, whatever, and stop being bossed around by "capitalists".

How much would it cost workers to purchase their firms? the total value of the shares of all stocks listen on the new york stock exhange in 1965 was 537 billion dollars. the total wages and salaries of all private employees that year was 288.5 billion. state and federal income taxes totalled 75.2 billion. if the workers had chosen to live at the consumption standard of hippies, they could have gotten a majority share in every firm in 2 and a half years and bought the capitalists out, lock, stock, and barrel, in five. That is a substantial cost, but surely cheaper than organizing a revolution, where people can be killed.

Also less of a gamble, and unlike a revolution, it dosn't have to be all at once. the employees of one firm can buy it this decade, then use their profits to help fellow workers buy theirs later. when you buy stock, you pay not only for the capital assets-buildings, machines, inventory, and the like- but also for its experience,reputation, and organization. If workers can really run firms better, these are unnecessary; all they need are physical assets. Those assets-the net working capital of all corportations in the United States-in 1965-totalled 171.7billion dollars. The workers could buy that much and go into business for themselves with fourteen months worth of savings.

[Octobox]

....in a "truly" free-market-anarchy -- because there is ZERO abdication to authority and no force to impose it. The "employee" becomes a “Sub-Contractor.” Employees only exist in “involuntary” or “corporatist” societies – well they can exist in harsher forms in non-voluntary forms of (democracy – socialism – communism). Corporatism is Corporate Fascism (or Cronyism). Again - Employee becomes Sub-Contractor in a truly free-society.

I do not believe in a purely Anarchist Society as long as we have non-anarchist neighbors -- I believe in a 7% Minarchism (to transition out of Crony Corporatism and move the world towards freedom) -- I like Anarcho-Capitalist writers and I also, support Ron Paul, but I feel abdicating to any gov't authority no matter their cause is self-defeating -- I love his spirited debates against the Fed. 7% -- 1% national sales tax for Naval Might Oversite -- 3% state sales tax (handled by the state) for Army and Air Guard Oversite -- 3% national sales tax to pay off all foreign debt. All markets are in anarchy -- State and Central Gov't gets one 6-yr term -- they are a Meritocracy and have no taxing, regulatory, or monetary authority (what-so-ever).

[continued]

The Sub-Contractor can trade his skill for some form of transferrable asset-commodity (etc) with the Contractor (formerly known as an “employer”). A mediator would hold the asset and the writ contract.

Unions would form voluntarily (temporarily) in cases where sub-contractors were ignorant of self-rule – anarchy. In such a case a union rep (paid) would meet with the mediator in their place and they would write up a contract in this fashion. For it to remain voluntarism (Anarchism) the contractor must be allowed to hire outside the union and individual sub-contractors who can enter into their own contracts without representation (like adults) cannot be forced into the union.

There would be some kind of open-sourced system for employers to "evaluate" a worker -- like ratemyprofessor.com. Of course how reliable would it be? There is no Soc Sec, no Gov't Database, no Gov't Police, no IRS, no Watchmen -- there are only mediated contracts or in the case of trusted employers an oral agreement (no mediator). There are no permanent employees. That's Anarcho-Capitalism (mediated contracts) -- If the voluntary labor-asset transfer happens with no contract than that is not Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-Cap Property Rights is oxymoronic. There would have to be a means of record -- County Record Keeper (a gov't property database) that all members abdicated too. There is no gov't in Anarcho-Cap – there is zero abdication (in anarchism) in the medium to long-run; save the temporary contracts. I suppose there could be an open-sourced version of title department, but that would not be enforceable over the entire populace -- only a temporary mediated contract. I'm building an ancillary argument that Anarcho-Cap is only a temporary phenomenon and not a total system of economics -- because it cannot enforce property rights without force. Anarcho-Cap is reduced to mediated contracts (thus far).

Imagine transitioning from our society now (Corporatism) into an Anarcho-Cap Society. All Gov't records would be destroyed or contested -- There would be no Involuntary Courts to decide who owns what. It would become the wild-wild west for a few decades. People would form "tribes" for protection (force) of property rights and Anarcho-cap (in terms of property ownership) would be out the window as a philosophy in minutes.

Tribal-Anarchism is pockets of “force” (villages) separated by anarchy (un-controlled land) – Inside the “force” anarchy is replaced by Minarchism and the rule of law – “force” is protectionism and this must be paid for (taxed) in advance (preventionism) – or worked off (debt-labor). Otherwise you are ex-communicated. If you lived outside this “force” you could not pass through or form “unions” (contracts) with members inside less some advantage be gained over the member body – you both would have to step outside the “force” (outside of protectionism) to conduct temporary contracts – the anarchy (self-rule) zone. The protectionism is in the public-domain (communism) – you could not horde the protectionism by bringing in non-paying-member agents otherwise an advantage is transferred to you. As long as you can enter and leave voluntarily then it is voluntarism.

For Anarcho-Cap Property Rights to work there would have to be 100% abdication to old gov't records as law -- who ever controlled these records would be an authority and there is no authority in Anarchism of any kind (less it be voluntary) – a society cannot determine voluntarism for the whole of society – that would be groupism / collectivism (the might of the many over the few).

My argument is that Anarcho-Cap can only exist in brief (momentary) intervals. Mediated contracts during non-fixed asset-commodity transfers. Service Provider to Consumer -- Business Owner to Contracted Worker -- Business Ownership Transfer (from Owner to Investor) -- Investor Transfer to New Investor. It must always exist in the short to medium run. In Anarcho-Cap the profit-bursts (ways to get wealthy) happen in the short-run -- because there is no protectionism in the long-run from Gov't. Therefore no-one would want to enter into long asset-tied contracts.

Also, because Anarcho-Cap itself is only mediated contracts -- If the contract is oral (no mediator) that is not Anarcho-Cap -- Because Capitalism claims property ownership is possible and that can only happen if there is a force to enforce it, and you need voluntary mediation for it to be anarchistic; thus, Anarcho-Capitalism, smile. There can be voluntary mediation in a free-anarchist-society.

The only growth sector in the long-run (assuming no force) is gold / silver (or some other tradable hard-asset). Any commodity could serve as long as there is perfect scarcity and there's demand outside of the contracted use – or some purchasing power (example: silver is used in electronics - so it's demand goes beyond simple exchange, it is a perfectly-scarce- resource where innovation can't replace it, and there is labor-value in its very extraction -- Fiat Dollars have no value and are actually debt instruments given there is no perfect-scarce-commodity backing them) and they can be printed with very little labor.

So, in an Anarchist Society there might be zones or regions (in terms of spatial and cognitive landscapes) where various types of anarchism is being practiced -- Anarcho-Cap would always be temporary.

Thus, Anarcho-Cap is a sub-set of Individual-Anarchism – only the individual can abdicate or enter into contracts or unions – Individualism (self-ownership) and only in anarchism do you have perfect voluntarism – “Individual-Anarchism” is the parent Anarchist model that all other forms fit under.

Who wrote these beautiful words?

The Self-Promoting Individual-Anarchist named OCTOBOX

[Jack]

Oh shit, Octo, you're the guy who kept *****ing about "groupism" on Youtube aren't you?

[Octobox]

Oh shit, Octo, you're the guy who kept *****ing about "groupism" on Youtube aren't you?

Do you want my autograph ;-)

I'm not against temporary groupism -- in a voluntary society (any form of anarchy) groupism never lasts in the long-run without the need of expansion; which violates no-rule.

Racism is Groupism -- though there may be a need (temporarily) to identify as a race to protect oneself -- If it is "welfarised" (protected at the expense of others) then it will implode. America is a welfarist society and now whites kill the most whites -- blacks-blacks -- mexicans-mexicans -- even klan vs klansmen. Reservationism is another group-think project that hasn't worked so well.

Simply stated I'm against Involuntary Groupism or any attempt at created a perpetual group -- Might of the many over the few. This is Crony Capitalism or Corporatism.

Do you agree with the sentiment or were you not debating?

Octobox

[Jack]

I don't agree but was not debating, I just enjoyed you getting owned by commenters on Youtube.

[Octobox]

Jack -- "owned" -- really? Can you post the link for me or if you don't want to waste space here you could send it to me in a message?

I laugh at myself all the time -- I think it would be funny to see me genuinely get owned -- let's have a laugh.

[Dimentio]

The protection agencies will have a large fraction of the armed might of society. What can prevent them from getting toguether and using that might to set themselves up as government?
In some ultimate sense, nothing can prevent that save a populace possesing arms and willing, if necessary, to use them. That is one reason I am against gun-control legislation.
But there are safeguards less ultimate than armed resistance. After all, our present police departments, national guard, and armed forces already possses most of the armed might. Why have they not combined to run the country for their own benefit? Neither soldiers nor policement are especially well paid; surely they could impose a better settlement at gunpoint.


Sounds like Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.

In my fantasy books, we have a race which calls itself "Z'jiati" and is called by humans as "goblins". They have a similar system. In their cities, they do not have any public authorities, just protection agencies called "clans" (which are built around loyalty, not bloodlines). About 1/10 of the goblins are members of a clan.

The clans are supporting themselves by fees paid by civilian goblins. It is entirely voluntary to pay a fee. No one is forcing you. But if you don't, no one will protect you if you are screwed.

The clans also have established their own corporations at the side, as a metyhod of earning extra, direct income. And when they do that, they enter into small wars with each-other to secure the markets. It gets quite messy.

I know that goblins are not exactly humans (they are fictive for a start), but an old saying says "rather one tyrant than many".

If we say we have a law, but all the weapons are in the hand of civilian organisations/clans/security agencies, the law will be at their mercy would they chose to ignore it.

Look at the UN for example. The reason why everyone ignores the UN is that it does'nt have any weapons.

In reality, all laws which have ever existed have been built on force, i.e, on the capability of one single organisation, within the territory governed by the law, to inflict punishment and pain upon those who are breaching the law.

All historical examples of multiple law agencies have occurred in deeply troubled societies were ethnic and sectarian differences have made it harder to found a unified government. In such societies, the agencies also tend to favour their own distinctive social and regional groups, thus creating a situation where the real law is that what group you belong to is more important than what actions you have done.

In short, anarcho-capitalism is a self-negation. The end-result will be neither capitalism or anarchism, but rather a government conducted by organised armed groups at the interests not of the people or the capitalists, but at more archaic social formations based on distinctive ideological and physical traits.

[Robert]

Jack -- "owned" -- really? Can you post the link for me or if you don't want to waste space here you could send it to me in a message?

No! Post it here, or send me the link by PM also. That way, we can all bite off a little piece of Octo and chew on it as we dance deliriously around the communal fire.

(Just a-woofin' ya there, Octo, I really do want to hear your stuff.)

[trivas7]

In short, anarcho-capitalism is a self-negation. The end-result will be neither capitalism or anarchism, but rather a government conducted by organised armed groups at the interests not of the people or the capitalists, but at more archaic social formations based on distinctive ideological and physical traits.
Indeed; the term is an oxymoron.

[Octobox]

"a-woofin" -- are you from Texas?

No worries, I feel fit.