The initiation of force

[danyboy27]

Since Capitalism is basically born from rulling class folks purging the countryside of europe from communal ownership after the middle ages to seize land and make way for industry, how can you be against the initiation of force?

After all, this whole economical system was build on the central power intervention into society.

[The Idler]

Who are you addressing? I do not support compulsory seizure by any central force as opposed to societal force.

[danyboy27]

Who are you addressing? I do not support compulsory seizure by any central force as opposed to societal force.
Laisse-faire capitalism and libertarianism in general.

Usually the argument you hear is that, the state should stop any initiation of force in an ideal free market, but that a bit strange to advocate that since the whole creation of this capitalist system is the result of a great deal of governemental initiation of force.

It has if modern capitalists advocate forgot where wealth accumulation all started.

[LovingEmbrace]

to use force is to live. it is as natural to crack the jaw of your fellow sister as to hug her and kiss her. if we condemn violence, we become as domestic as the dog. violence is an insurrectionary art, and it is completely natural to be violent in front of challenges. what is unnatural is to react as an automaton.

saying that, the state is not initiating force. the state can per definition only instate rational, calculated and goal-orienting suffering, because the state can not feel hate, passion, love or jealousy.

we need to smash the state. we need to smash the state within. the state of the mind. and let our true nature liberate itself.

[Tim Cornelis]

[libertarian modus]
You own yourself (self-ownership), you own your labour, therefore you are entitled to owning the fruits of your labour. For instance, land which is not owned (which is tantamount to communal ownership) and subsequently cultivated by labour then the land becomes the private property of the first to claim ownership in accordance with the expenditure of labour in relation to the common land. Since you own yourself, transforming something into your property through labour is not force, restricting this in any way, shape, or form is, however. This is a legitimate form of private ownership. If land, in contrast, is seized, it is not legitimate. This problem of redistribution after the libertarian takeover had taken hold is an internal debate with no definite answers. Most libertarians, I'd wager, support stripping the remaining aristocrats and heirs of their property and continue from there in accordance with property rights.
That the government has played an illegitimate role in the development of capitalism does not change the fact that private ownership is legitimate.
[/libertarian modus]

[Dean]

Since Capitalism is basically born from rulling class folks purging the countryside of europe from communal ownership after the middle ages to seize land and make way for industry, how can you be against the initiation of force?

After all, this whole economical system was build on the central power intervention into society.

Most libertarians talk their points from a moralist or purist perspective. The notion isn't that the world is perfect, but that society will be better, or it is just, if nobody touches others' things without their permission. Usually it relies on a pretty limited notion of property which equates seizure of capital with breaking your neighbor's car windows and stealing the stereo.

I don't think you're going to convince anarcho capitalists away from their ideology with that argument. In general, a better argument is that it is forceful to seize goods necessary for social survival. A good thought experiment is to argue that if only one firm possessed the means to produce food in a society, it would be just as forceful as a chain around everyone's feet. Everybody has to work for or plead with the firm or with someone who has succeeded in acquiring food or the means to produce food from said firm. You could also argue this same point regarding possession of water, land, air, etc..

It's not likely to convince anyone, though. Libertarians are invested in their infancy for various reasons. It's probably much more useful to address the undecided public regarding specific issues which can be framed in ways that lead to obvious socialist solutions, but do not make the socialist element too glaring.

[Taters]

It's not likely to convince anyone, though. Libertarians are invested in their infancy for various reasons. It's probably much more useful to address the undecided public regarding specific issues which can be framed in ways that lead to obvious socialist solutions, but do not make the socialist element too glaring.

Yet, I don't think we'll fool anyone into being socialists. You're not suggesting trickery, right?

[Lowtech]

force in an economic sense follows closer to the term manipulation.

whereas, if you see someone that has something you want and you take it, you're barbaric, but if you manipulate the real economic process so that person gives you what you want on a continual basis, you are a capitalist.