The Official Anarchism Thread

Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
The Official Anarchism Thread

Since people keep bringing up politics and we keep hijacking threads in the recurring discussions of anarchism, I figured I'd bring it all to one thread and point other people to this thread when they have problems. I don't even remember how many threads got dragged off-topic. I apologize for anyone who's thread that happened to.

If you have questions about anarchism, ask them here and I'll do my best to answer them. If you have objections to anarchism, say them here and I'll do my best to rebut them.

A few common questions/objections that I've seen here.

"Government is necessary."
No it isn't. This seems to be just something people reflexively say without thinking much about it. The government does provide certain services which could aptly be considered "necessary" such as defense, protection, roads, courts, and other things. It is not necessary for government to provide these things. The market can and will offer them if the government is not there. If the government ceased providing those services, (and it does not have to provide those services,) no part of the government would be "necessary" and thus government itself would become unneccessary.

"No anarchist nation has ever succeeded."
I forgot what thread I was in that I got this one. Anarchism literally is "ana-archon", without rulers. Because rulers are ineffective where their rule cannot be enforced, everyplace is anarchy where there is not a police officer or representative of the ruler (or government) present to enforce the ruler's will. Anarchy is not a form of government which a nation has, and happens to be none. Anarchy is the absence of government. An "Anarchist nation" is a contradiction in terms. Also, the amount of success a nation has is proportional to the amount of anarchy within it. That's why the USSR collapsed. That said, there have been successful regions of land which had no effective government. Celtic Ireland, ancient Iceland, early Rhode Island, and the "Wild West" (which by the way actually had lower crime rates than the east coast) are examples. Celtic Ireland was eventually conquered by the British. Not surprising because Britan was a major power at the time. It still took even Britan a long time to do, because no existing power structure was there for them to take over to relay orders.

"Anarchy is chaos."
As I said above, we live our day-to-day lives in anarchy (unless you're a cop or bureaucrat), and those lives are not chaos in the sense "Anarchy" is typically used to illustrate. Anarchy being chaos is contradictory to experience.

"Without government, land ownership is impossible."
No it's not. Land is just like everything else we own. It's just less mobile. We do not need governments to own our clothes, nor our cars. The same applies to land.

"Most people need leaders."
Let them choose their own leaders.

Now, I came to arrive at anarchism (my particular type being market anarchism, or "Anarcho-capitalism") by being a consistent libertarian. Libertarians believe in a moral law of non-aggression: theft, slavery, and murder are wrong. Very few people dispute this for most people. Libertarians differ from most others by applying this moral law to all people. Because the government consists of people, they are not exempt. Theft, slavery, and murder are wrong, even when called tax, law, and war. How libertarian a person is can be measured by how consistently they apply this to government.

Anarchists identify everything that makes the government "the government" as aggressive. Claiming jurisdiction over land they do not own is theft. The courts, consisting of people, cannot aggress against other people, including those in competing court systems (this was just for you, YN5).

Anarchism is not about causing chaos and rampant violence, it's about ending the chaos and rampant violence committed regularly by governments. Anarchists do not believe governments are sacred.

A small portion of anarchists consider themselves "Agorists". I'm part of that small portion. Agorists are free-market anarchists who believe that the solution to the problem of the government is to replace it with non-aggressive alternatives. Because the government is not a big fan of that idea, this just so happens to involve a lot of activity on the black market or gray market.

Agorists have a class-theory somewhat like Marxists (I don't like marxism, I'm not trying to identify with it), but without Marx's overt stupidity. Marx cited the owners of the means of production (capitalists, "borgeoisie") as the oppressive class, Agorists cite the owners of the means of destruction (statists, political class) as the oppressive class. Marx believed the surplus of value created by workers was being stolen by capitalists. Agorists believe the value created by the host population is stolen by the government (called "taxation"). The pattern follows, correcting much marxist idiocy along the way.

Most of the attacks directed at capitalism by the leftists and commies make ten times as much sense if you replace the words "capitalists" with "government", "workers" with "taxpayers", and so on. For example, Capitalism is not creating a powerful elite class that can do as it likes (as MattShizzle pointed out an hour or two ago in another part of the RRS forums). Government is creating a powerful elite class that can do as it likes. It happens to be friends with big business, and so, when not politically posturing and interfering with big business, it tends to be in bed with it behind closed doors. If capitalists are extremely powerful, it's because the government is there for them to take control of. The solution is not to abolish capitalism, but to abolish the government. Leftists ignore this because they have a fetish for big government.

A free market in everything the government presently does would be superior to what we have now. Disjunction between payment and service under government create uneconomic allocation of resources which creates shortages and surpluses, which would be solved by a free market, where you choose how much of what you want. Elimination of competition under government (government has a monopoly military, police force, road ownership, etc) increases costs, decreases quality and quantity produced, creates waste and inefficiency, et cetera, which are all solved on a free market which allows competition.

Example: Would you rather send packages USPS or FedEx? If the government didn't make it illegal for anyone other than USPS to deliver non-urgent letters under $1, do you think you'd rather send mail via USPS or FedEx? Did you know the USPS doesn't meet it's costs from the user fees (stamps and such), so it has to dig into tax money to pay the extra? The USPS is subsidized, so part of it's costs are hidden. Would you rather the USPS just do everything, or should UPS and FedEx be allowed to compete? Other examples of market vs government look a lot like this one. The market is economic anarchism. The government is it's polar opposite.

Are there any more questions about how I think, what I think, why I think what I think, et cetera? I'll just refer people to this thread whenever they ask me about it from here on, so the earlier you ask, the more people will see it.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
It is clear you wish to have

It is clear you wish to have a free market. Is there any specific free market economy you want or do you just want a free market economy?

Earlier you stated your disagreement with the LTV. Why do you disagree with it?

What about monopolies on basic utilities? Having two companies putting down separate power and water lines would not be good.

Are abundances good?

How stable would the economy be and why?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:It is clear you

qbg wrote:
It is clear you wish to have a free market. Is there any specific free market economy you want or do you just want a free market economy?

A free market in which anything material can be owned.

Quote:
Earlier you stated your disagreement with the LTV. Why do you disagree with it?

I believe it is false. It fails to explain various phenomena of value. Value is subjective, and the LTV requires value to be objective. Classical economists used the LTV because they had no better explanation, leftist economists use the LTV because it justifies a hatred of an "exploiting" capitalist class which owns the means of production. Some explanations of the LTV I've read have insisted that market value, utility value, and actual value are different, but I don't believe any third type of value exists.

Quote:
What about monopolies on basic utilities? Having two companies putting down separate power and water lines would not be good.

It might not be economical, but only the market could decide. If I have a generator, would you believe it to be inefficient for me to transmit power to my neighbors when an existing power grid exists? If they are buying it, they obviously like mine better...such as in many cities where brownouts may be common, and during the NY blackout it would have been very economical. There is nothing inherently "not good" about it. The same if I have a well and the city's water shuts down. In those cases, boil water orders are given.

Quote:
Are abundances good?

Surpluses? No, because the resources which created the surplus would be better used in sectors of the economy with shortages.

Quote:
How stable would the economy be and why?

Business cycles are caused by inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. It gives a false sense of propserity, and lowers interest rates. When investors and capitalists are acting as if the economy is accelerating (as they believe due to the additional money), and the consumers who only see rising prices are spending as they normally would, a disparity forms. When this disparity finally hits, we end up with a market crash. Inflation occurs mostly with fiat currencies (in which the government can simply print additional money and spend it). Fiat currencies exist because governments create them. If not for government mandate of fiat currencies, people would use hard currencies which do not inflate, like gold or silver (or gold and silver notes). There are economics lectures at Mises.org that can explain this better than I can, so if you'd like a more complete explanation, you can find one there.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
The anarchism discussion

The anarchism discussion itself got a bit out of hand for me, but I'll gladly bite into this:

qbg wrote:
It is clear you wish to have a free market. Is there any specific free market economy you want or do you just want a free market economy?

What do you mean 'specific free market economy'?
A free market is a market without any outside regulation, anything other then that is obviously not free.

Quote:
Earlier you stated your disagreement with the LTV. Why do you disagree with it?

Because value is subjective by definition.
You cant make me buy something for more then I think it's worth.
I can't force you to sell something for less then you think it's worth.
The amount of labour put into producing it irrelevant.

Quote:
What about monopolies on basic utilities? Having two companies putting down separate power and water lines would not be good.

Can you explain why?
I don't see any problems with this.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: qbg

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

qbg wrote:
It is clear you wish to have a free market. Is there any specific free market economy you want or do you just want a free market economy?

What do you mean 'specific free market economy'?

A free market is a market without any outside regulation, anything other then that is obviously not free.


A free market would be a mode of exchange. This is not enough to describe an economy; you also need a mode of production. So assuming there are several different modes of production that can go with a free market, there are several different free market economies.

Quote:

Quote:
Earlier you stated your disagreement with the LTV. Why do you disagree with it?

Because value is subjective by definition.
You cant make me buy something for more then I think it's worth.
I can't force you to sell something for less then you think it's worth.
The amount of labour put into producing it irrelevant.


Under the LTV there is an exchange-value (which may not not be equal to its labor-value). This would be the value of the object on the market. The labor-value exists to give the object an objective basis for the subjective exchange-value. The labor-value regulates the exchange-value of the object.

Think about this: how are prices determined in the STV?

Quote:

Quote:
What about monopolies on basic utilities? Having two companies putting down separate power and water lines would not be good.

Can you explain why?
I don't see any problems with this.


Its a waste of resources and a waste of space in the ground.
--------
What about privatization? I suppose you disagree with this powerpoint

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Damn, these are getting

Damn, these are getting long.

Tilberian wrote:
I'll stop mentioning brainwashing if you stop making the totally unwarranted assumption that everyone in an anarchist society will remain anarchists through pure personal preference.

If the means I believe brought about anarchy were what brought it about, people would remain anarchists because anarchism is true.

Tilberian wrote:
There are all kinds of people in the world, and the big weakness of anarchy is that it only takes a few aggressive types to totally screw up the system.

The other defensive types would kill the few aggressive types.

Tilberian wrote:
Do you think democracy persists because of everyone's personal preference? Hell no! It's because there's a written-down set of rules and institutions that members of the public service are required to defend, under oath. People who attempt to subvert these institutions from outside of the established process are put down with force.

Democracy has to be enforced because it is false.

Tilberian wrote:
Because the lesson of history and human psychology is that people will fight, unless physically prevented from doing so.

And what stops me from fighting when the government isn't there to force me not to? Where morality exists, laws are unnecessary. Where no morality exists, laws are unenforcable.

Tilberian wrote:
So you deny that throughout history violent men have rushed in to fill power vaccums. OK, I'm getting bored with this.

No. I deny that this would keep happening when people do not accept leadership.

Tilberian wrote:
Some people don't count the cost as long as they can grab power. Especially when they can shift the cost to others.

There is no power to "grab" because there is no desire of the people to be rules. Power wouldn't be there to be grabbed, it would have to be created, and you'd have a hard time creating it.

Tilberian wrote:
Government is not necessarily created by people? Bwa...bwaha...BWAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Who creates it then? Aliens?

I said "THE PEOPLE" as in the majority of the people supported the creation of government. Don't take shit out of context. It's not necessarily true that the majority of the people supported the creation of government when it was created.

Tilberian wrote:
Right. As soon as people are able to, they form government. Why? Are all people, all through history, stupid? If lack of government is so great, why haven't people just stayed that way whenever government is absent?

Because they didn't know any better. Becuase the church kept telling people "You need the state! These guys are god/appointed by god/somehow related to god! Obey them or you go to hell when you die!" for hundreds of years. Everywhere atheistic they're leftists and have a fetish for government.

Tilberian wrote:
Your arrogance is breathtaking. You, who have never had to live in anything other than the most advanced, free and secure society the world has ever seen, think you can sit there and second guess the decisions of all people down through history? Tell you what, go live somewhere where there's no government for a while then come back and tell us all how wrong people are to want one.

You only understand what I think of anarchy when I bring it up. I believe I already live the vast majority of my life in anarchy.

Tilberian wrote:
Use any measure you want. There is more peace inside the average government than there would be in the average anarchy.

Only if government violence doesn't constitute peace. And that's arbitrary. You don't even realize how much implicit and overt violence the government uses, so your definition is arbitrary.

Tilberian wrote:
This is silly because even when a government official is not present, people are aware that the area they are in is under government control, and that transgressions, if they are reported, will be investigated. Even if they think there is little chance of that, they get in the habit of staying within the law and will usually do so as long as they know they are within the law's jurisdiction.

That's not true. I don't, I know a lot of people that don't obey the law when the government isn't around. I know a lot of people that break the law right in front of police and nothing happens because the police don't know what the law is. I break what most people think is the law all the time in front of other people, hundreds of people, and nobody calls the cops on me.

Tilberian wrote:
What bloody good would it do for a PA to wait until an attack to raise their price?

Price is set by supply and demand. Demand goes up, prices go up.

Tilberian wrote:
If they haven't prepared in advance, a price rise during isn't going to help them!

It's going to help them allocate resources and determine who to go help first.

Tilberian wrote:
The PA has to be at least as well armed as the mercenaries beforehand, which means a PA is going to cost about the same.

No, PAs will be in greater supply and less demand (people can supply the service themselves). This lowers the price.

Tilberian wrote:
More, actually, since you have to keep the PA on retainer all the time, and the mercenaries can be hired on a per-job basis.

Mercenaries can serve one at a time. A PA can be retained by a lot of people at once.

Tilberian wrote:
I also note with disdain your casual attitude toward people who can't pay for the very expensive protection your anarchy requires. It seems to be fine with you if poor people are killed and starved.

If there's only enough for very few people, the people that aren't doing as much good for everyone might as well not be the ones getting protected. If you can't afford the protection, protect yourself, if you can't protect yourself, darwin will show you a lesson.

Tilberian wrote:
Then how the hell is it an anarchy?

Anarchy - Ana archon - Without rulers. There would be no geographic monopoly on force, and there would be no ruler of that geographic monopoly on force, so there would be no government and no rulers. It's anarchy.

Tilberian wrote:
Oh I see. So my neighbour steals my car and I hire cops to investigate the crime. Then I hire a court to try my neighbour. The court convicts him, and he says "fuck that, I don't recognize your court." And we're back to duelling mercenary groups.

Stop doing that jump-to-stupid-uninformed-conclusions thing. No, he goes and gets the other court to overturn the decision. If the first court wants it's decision respected, it'll have to take the other court to a third court, and that decision would be made binding on both courts, then action can be taken.

Tilberian wrote:
So the interested parties in a dispute hire the arbiter of the dispute. What happens if one party has no interest in seeing the matter resolved?

Both have interest in having the matter resolved in their own favor. If both choose the same arbiter, the decision would be made obligatory on both by contract. How do you forsee them not resolving the matter?

Tilberian wrote:
That are legitimized by what? The courts that depend on them for their custom? Do the words conflict of interest mean anything to you?

No no no...people convicted would have been found to violate someone else's ownership (read as "rights"), and they'd thus have their ownership of themselves revoked.

Tilberian wrote:
How can I be responsible for my actions without rules to guide those actions?

The rules are set by the person you supposedly wronged.

Tilberian wrote:
How do I know what actions are OK and which I'm going to get punished for?

The rules are set by the person you've supposedly wronged.

Tilberian wrote:
What authority do they use to justify use of force against people?

They don't need any. If you're found to not respect ownership, you lose your right to ownership. Including ownership of yourself. If you don't own yourself, you're unowned property and anyone can do whatever they want to you because your rights are revoked.

Tilberian wrote:
And if two people disagree over where a particular court has jurisdiction?

Their jurisdiction is not geographical. It's over whoever brings cases to them. A court in China could hear a case from Argentina for all I care.

Tilberian wrote:
The Constitution and THE GOVERNMENT.

No, the government's employees...and those employees would just be hired by different people if the government wasn't there.

Tilberian wrote:
So there's no real difference between a PA and a mercenary group, except in the kind of work they accept. And there's nothing to prevent a particular group from deciding to change their line of work. So rent-an-armies will be prevalent in your anarchy. I feel more secure already.

Buy a machinegun and fill your walls with concrete and mine your front yard. You'd be able to do all that for $2000 in anarchy and never need a PA again.

Tilberian wrote:
But someone is. And they could very well decide to take over.

They don't think stupid like you've been doing. Find someone that owns $10 million in assets or more and get them to come here and talk. The rich are rich because they think differently and better than the lower and middle classes. You don't think like them.

Tilberian wrote:
Wait a second. You've already admitted that governments enjoy a military advantage. If citizens want the strongest possible force protecting them, doesn't it therefore make sense for them to form a government?

No. Because they can't control the government. It would just become the same thing your malevolent rich guy is.

Tilberian wrote:
You set up a government with checks and balances on power.

Those don't work. What check or balance exists outside the government that wouldn't conspire with the government to increase it's power?

Tilberian wrote:
Yes, power ultimately rests in the hands of the military. So you do need buy-in from the military that they will obey the orders they get from the civilian government. This is difficult to do - look how often a military decides to overthrow civilian governments. But once you have that buy in, and other controls in place (for instance forcing the military to rely on the government for funding), you have a stable government without tyranny.

And how do you stop the government from becoming tyrannical? These mythical "checks and balances" don't exist except in fiction.

Tilberian wrote:
That is, unless you redefine tyranny to mean any government that ever prevents anyone from doing what they want ever - which is how most anarchists define tyranny.

Not "whatever they want", but whatever they want that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If someone has the right to do something and the government prohibits it, the government is violating their rights, and becomes the criminal.

Tilberian wrote:
Most people feel the level of "tyranny" they experience at the hands of good government is more than made up for by the benefits they receive. Like being able to live without fear of imminent death.

Somalians don't have to live with that fear, and somalia has been governmentless for 15 years. Only a small portion is so violent, most somalians feel safe without carrying guns around.

Tilberian wrote:
Look at Afghanistan in the late '80s. The government collapsed and for several years there was no official power at all. It didn't take long for those people, formerly no known for being religious fanatics, to accept the Taliban as rulers rather than go on as they were.

Look at Somalia in the present. The government was torn down by the somalians. The UN had to go in and try to set up a democracy, and they just tore that one right down also. Attempts to set up a government are seen by somalians as attempts by some other group to control them.

Tilberian wrote:
So you're back to claimiing that there won't be any wealthy people in your anarchy.

Reread what I said and find a way to misconstrue my words to mean that.

Tilberian wrote:
No reason. It's just that your overreaction to problems that barely exist is driving you to consider bizarre solutions like anarchy.

Logic is driving me to anarchy. The state has so many internal and institutional contradictions.

Tilberian wrote:
You have no experience with anarchy. You like in a stable democracy.

Anarchy is a place without rulers. At present, I have no rulers. Demonstrate to the contrary.

Tilberian wrote:
What if someone won't sell?

They'll always sell. You just have to offer them enough money. I won't be a whore for $100, but for millions of dollars, I'd certainly consider it. They'll sell it.

Tilberian wrote:
What if you already have sufficient military force to take over the territory, but not enough free cash to buy it? What is any other of the dozens of reasons for invasion exist?

Do you want the house or do you want a patch of scorched grass? If you'll limit your attack to no bombing, do you have any guarantee of success? Can you afford to have your rights revoked by all courts?

Tilberian wrote:
And they can't get it?

They can't fit it in their resturaunt.

Tilberian wrote:
I have security.

Security is a feeling. Protection is what you mean. And your protection might not save you from a hunter with a remington 700 and a good scope.

Tilberian wrote:
I might say that if I didn't know what it meant. Since I do, I say I do.

You keep not knowing but thinking you do and showing your ignorance. If you don't know ask. As I said, if nothing else, it's more polite.

Tilberian wrote:
Here we go. It all comes down to you thinking you're a tough guy with your gun. It all comes down to you thinking you can take on anything, and therefore you don't need cops or a military or social services or nuthin.

You are seriously deluded.


And you're the one thinking you can just hire a private army and do whatever you want. You're deluded.

If I'm prepared for you, you won't be getting very far on my property. It's not expensive to mine a front yard with tannerite and buy enough ammo to destroy almost anything.

Tilberian wrote:
There certainly would be a victor - they guy who pays and commands the troops. And either he or they would claim the captured territory.

They didn't caputure it, they defended it. They realize it's much easier to defend and collect payment from the locals voluntarily than it is to attack and extract it the hard way. And it's not necessarily true that they have a commander or are being paid. I'll defend my house from an intruder, I'd join with my neighbors to defend my neighborhood from invasion, that doesn't mean me and my troops would own my neighborhood and rule it by force and claim it as territory, it means after successful defense, I'd go home.

Tilberian wrote:
OK, so no wealthy people in your anarchy. Count me out.

Yes there will be. What'll stop people from making money?

Tilberian wrote:
Oh I see, so now it's your perfect psychoanalysis of the wealthy that is holding your anarchy together. It's perfectly possible that a rich person might start building an empire with hired guns, but it won't happen because "they won't want to." Read a history book then get back to me.

Find an instance of a rich businessman taking over a country and imposing a government.

Tilberian wrote:
What percentage? Those are the numbers that you have to kill in the first assault, then the rest will fall into line. In fact, the percentage is quite a bit less, since people volunteeering for the military usually don't expect to actually see combat.

I don't know what percentage. Do you? I'd defend myself from you, even if I'm not defending anyone else in the process. As soon as an opportunity arose to break free, I would.

Tilberian wrote:
Which they don't. That's what military training is for.

They can be creative. Guerillas are pretty good at it.

Tilberian wrote:
Guess you'd have to make sure you offered the mercenaries more than that, then.

If you're paying the mercenary $75,000 a year, your expenses go up even more. Now it's less profitable and less sustainable.

Tilberian wrote:
That has never happened anywhere, ever, and nothing in human behaviour suggests that it could. You are at least as deluded as a communist.

It happens all the time, just not to the entire government at once.

Tilberian wrote:
Wrong again. My perception of an anarchy is that people are definately going to take care of themselves and take it upon themselves to quickly set up an organization that most effectively promotes their security and success as a group - government.

They can do that if they want...they can't form a government which claims territory other than what the voluntary participants own, otherwise it's aggressive. My objection to government is that it's involuntary. This is the source of all the problems of government. If you could make one that's completely voluntary, great! I have no objection to that, as long as it doesn't force me to participate.

Tilberian wrote:
More militia fantasy BS. Do you jerk off to Soldier of Fortune?

No, but I like improvised weaponry. You can make shit for so damn cheap...

Tilberian wrote:
What a laugh. Hey Rambo, why don't we just drop you into Iraq all by yourself and you can just clean up everything there on your own?

Because I don't want to. I'll defend to the death, but not offend.

Tilberian wrote:
As this entire thread proves, anarchy is about as logically consistent as the Bible.

Statism is about as logically consistent as the Bible. Government protects yet steals taxes? Government is defensive yet aggressive? I should make a list of statist idiocy and try to get it refuted.

Tilberian wrote:
Come on back to the discussion when you're finished humping your rifle.

Ad hominem.

Tilberian wrote:
Then why is it your position that governments have military advantages over civilians?

Because civilians generally see government as a legitemate protector and not as an aggressive force robbing them at gunpoint.

Tilberian wrote:
Naked, empty, unsupported assertion that flies in the face of all historical evidence.

Hitler was an authority. He started wars. Historical evidence is plenty.

Tilberian wrote:
Why on earth would anyone who just conquered territory just walk away from it? Espeically when, since its an anarchy, there's nothing to prevent them from just keeping it?

They're not conquering it. They're defending it from your attack.

Tilberian wrote:
Which is why they can't live in peace in an anarchy.

It's precisely why they can live in peace in anarchy (in case you forget, this is in refrence to my comment that they are greedy selfish and egocentric). I'm selfish, I like my stuff. That's why I don't want you taking it. I want your stuff, but I don't want you taking my stuff or hurting me (I'm selfish). You are also selfish, so you would hurt me if I hurt you. I don't want to get hurt, so I won't hurt you. But I want your stuff. So I do something for you that I value little that you value greatly and you give me some of your stuff. That's peaceful free trade.

Tilberian wrote:
Right. Except for those people who are never satisfied and who always strive for more.

They can trade for more valuable stuff then.

Tilberian wrote:
It's both, actually.

So you admit that governments are aggressive?

Tilberian wrote:
You would as long as you could get away with stealing the use of them.

How do you know I could steal their use? How do you know I'm not somehow paying for them?

Tilberian wrote:
Yes. Cities without police have always been ruled by gangs.

Always? For all time? New York City was ruled by gangs hundreds of years ago?

Tilberian wrote:
Apparently your knowledge of cellular biology is about on par with your knowledge of politics and history.

E. Coli is a bacterium. If you boil it, it dies.

Tilberian wrote:
And you love it that way because you can sit back in your cosy, secure little corner of America and bitch about how the government doesn't let you live like a wild man. Hypocrite.

The government isn't making it cozy or secure.

Tilberian wrote:
I've been to Europe and seen the old roads. They sucked.

Were the roads privately owned?

Tilberian wrote:
Because it's gathered together, a bit at a time, from everyone instead of just a few people footing the bill. this way, there's more money and its all under centralized control.

This could happen with private roads also.

Tilberian wrote:
The free market does those things better which have a profit motive attached.

Anything with scarcity and demand has a profit motive attached.

Tilberian wrote:
On the other hand, health care is something that should not be in the hands of people just looking to make a buck.

Why not?

Tilberian wrote:
As for security and courts, shit, they'd be a total corrupt mess if left to private enterprise.

If left without competition as a private enterprise, I agree, but if there is competition they couldn't afford to be corrupt.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:A free market

qbg wrote:
A free market would be a mode of exchange. This is not enough to describe an economy; you also need a mode of production. So assuming there are several different modes of production that can go with a free market, there are several different free market economies.

Whichever mode people decide to employ.

qbg wrote:
Under the LTV there is an exchange-value (which may not not be equal to its labor-value). This would be the value of the object on the market. The labor-value exists to give the object an objective basis for the subjective exchange-value. The labor-value regulates the exchange-value of the object.

But labor does not necessarily increase exchange value. I agree that in many cases it will do so, but the existence of unexplained exceptions that do not embrace an alternative theory (the explanation you offered embraced subjective theory) make the theory invalid. If it doesn't apply to all relevant instances, then it's false, something else must be true.

qbg wrote:
Think about this: how are prices determined in the STV?

Supply and demand.

qbg wrote:
Its a waste of resources and a waste of space in the ground.

You said it was "not good"...this is your personal opinion. Economic calculation is impossible with only one person making the decisions because no individual has sufficient knowledge to plan an economy. While in your opinion it might seem wasteful, if someone else demands an alternative and is willing to pay for all necessary infrastructure, it's not wasteful, as it is meeting someone's demand who demands it so much.

qbg wrote:
What about privatization? I suppose you disagree with this powerpoint

It doesn't seem to contradict what I advocate, it's addressing the ACCC, an Australian government agency. From the ACCC's website at www.accc.gov.au

"The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, business and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.

The ACCC is the only national agency dealing generally with competition matters and the only agency with responsibility for enforcing the Trade Practices Act and the state/territory application legislation."

This "Trade Practices Act" is the application of force to have a market do what it would not naturally do. If the ACCC does anything, it does so by force, and distorts to market to meet what it percieves as a correct economic theory. I am opposed to this. I believe in free markets.

Government agency's economists rarely subscribe to the school of economics which I believe to be valid, the Austrian school. Other schools of economics are fascistic or socialistic in some way or another. Schools employed by governments are necessarily either fascistic or socialistic. I'm opposed to all of those.

I don't know what school of economics the ACCC applies...the most popular is Keynesian economics (Keynes was a fascist), which has myraid stupid beliefs such as the inversely proportional unemployment/inflation phillip's curve, and some of those probably caused the absurdities cited in the powerpoint. It seems to me that the ACCC is there to enforce competition where it deems necessary and create monopolies where it deems necessary. I believe the amount of competition in a market should be decided by the free market, not by government fiat.

In short, I don't believe the powerpoint addresses what I believe.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: But labor does

Zhwazi wrote:

But labor does not necessarily increase exchange value. I agree that in many cases it will do so, but the existence of unexplained exceptions that do not embrace an alternative theory (the explanation you offered embraced subjective theory) make the theory invalid. If it doesn't apply to all relevant instances, then it's false, something else must be true.

Have an example of a relevant instance when it doesn't apply?
Quote:

Supply and demand.

Lets just be lazy and quote:
Quote:

The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their satisfaction. Hence subjective value theory "obviously rest[s] on circular reasoning. Although it tries to explain prices, prices [are] necessary to explain marginal utility." [Paul Mattick, Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation, p.58] In the end, as Jevons (one of the founders of marginalism) acknowledged, the price of a commodity is the only test we have of the utility of the commodity to the producer. Given that marginality utility was meant to explain those prices, the failure of the theory could not be more striking.

Quote:

While the STV is handy for describing the price of works of art (and we should note that the LTV can also provide an explanation for this), there is little point having an economic theory which ignores the nature of the vast majority of economic activity in society. What the labour theory of value explains is what is beneath supply and demand, what actually determines price under capitalism. It recognises the objectivity given price and supply which face a consumer and indicates how consumption ("subjective evaluations") affect their movements. It explains why a certain commodity sells at a certain price and not another -- something which the subjective theory cannot really do. Why should a supplier "alter their behaviour" in the market if it is based purely on "subjective evaluations"? There has to be an objective indication that guides their actions and this is found in the reality of capitalist production. To re-quote Proudhon, "[i]f supply and demand alone determine value, how can we tell what is an excess and what is a sufficiency? If neither cost, nor market price, nor wages can be mathematically determined, how is it possible to conceive of a surplus, a profit?" [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 114] Therefore, "[t]o say . . . that supply and demand is the law of exchange is to say that supply and demand is the law of supply and demand; it is not an explanation of the general practice, but a declaration of its absurdity." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Thus the labour theory of value more accurately reflects reality: namely, that for a normal commodity, prices as well as supply exist before subjective evaluations can take place and that capitalism is based on the production of profit rather than abstractly satisfying consumer needs.

...But I doubt you would agree given the source.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps we should

Perhaps we should distinguish here, as this seems to be a point of confusion:

Value = Maximum amount I would pay for something
Price = Actual selling price of item on market

Value is subjective.
Price is objective and determined by supply and demand.

If I value something more than the price, I buy it.
If I value something less than the price, I won't buy it.

Anything which is made not relevant due to being an expansion upon a rebutted statement is omitted.

qbg wrote:
Have an example of a relevant instance when it doesn't apply?

Wine is not made more valuable than grape juice by the effort put into it. Mudpies are not made more valuable by the labor put into them. If the LTV were true, and the value of a thing increased according to the amount of money put into it, these couldn't happen.

Quote:
The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their satisfaction.

I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction." I can judge the value of a thing without looking at it's price. You can ask me what I would buy it for, and I could give you a price I would pay based on how much I value it.

Quote:
While the STV is handy for describing the price of works of art (and we should note that the LTV can also provide an explanation for this), there is little point having an economic theory which ignores the nature of the vast majority of economic activity in society.

All value can be determined subjectively. It has to be. Value differs from person to person. If eggs are being sold for $1 a dozen, the fact that some people buy those eggs and others don't illustrates that some people think those eggs are worth more than one dollar and others believe they are worth less than one dollar. For example, if I don't have a refridgerator (or any room in it), and I couldn't sell them (who'd want to buy eggs from someone more questionable than a store? It is food after all,) you'd have to give them to me free to get rid of them. LTV appears to assert that there's an underlying value that supply and demand act around, but that isn't consistent with an example like this. There is a general tendency for things which require more labor to sell for more. But that doesn't determine value.

Quote:
What the labour theory of value explains is what is beneath supply and demand, what actually determines price under capitalism. It recognises the objectivity given price and supply which face a consumer and indicates how consumption ("subjective evaluations") affect their movements.

If this is asserting that labor actually determines price under capitalism, it is subject to the wine/mudpie thing.

Quote:
It explains why a certain commodity sells at a certain price and not another -- something which the subjective theory cannot really do.

Price is determined by supply and demand, value is determined subjectively.

Quote:
Why should a supplier "alter their behaviour" in the market if it is based purely on "subjective evaluations"? There has to be an objective indication that guides their actions and this is found in the reality of capitalist production.

Subjectivity is a property of satisfaction, satisfaction is the goal of consumption, consumption requires production, production requires suppliers.

Quote:
To re-quote Proudhon, "[i]f supply and demand alone determine value, how can we tell what is an excess and what is a sufficiency?

Value and price are confused. Supply and demand determine price. Subjective judgements determine value.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the debate,

Thanks for the debate, Zhwazi, but as Hal the computer said, this conversation can serve no further useful purpose. I haven't heard anything here that convinces me that an anarchy would be anything other than a bloody free-for-all, finally ended by a new government regime of some kind. Not that the idea of living without government isn't nice, but I just don't think human nature allows for it, any more than it allowed for Communism.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
You've just done what a

You've just done what a theist does. You start with a conclusion (god exists/government is necessary), and when all the evidence you've seen doesn't prove otherwise, and all the evidence you think you've seen confirms it, you declare that (god exists/government is necessary) and nobody who believes otherwise can put forward a good case in your eyes. You probably don't take the time to even consider their case. You take premises and come to stupid unfounded conclusions based on them (there is no god therefore right and wrong don't exist/without the government rich guys would take over) just like a theist. You cling to an absurdity as your savior.

Don't keep calling yourself an atheist if you're gonna do that.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Notice that there is a

Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history. You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work. All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."

You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Finally had the

Finally had the time....

Zhwazi wrote:
Perhaps we should distinguish here, as this seems to be a point of confusion:

Value = Maximum amount I would pay for something
Price = Actual selling price of item on market


The price would be the exchange-value. Value as you use it seems to be closer to a concept of utility.

If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?

qbg wrote:
Have an example of a relevant instance when it doesn't apply?

Wine is not made more valuable than grape juice by the effort put into it. Mudpies are not made more valuable by the labor put into them. If the LTV were true, and the value of a thing increased according to the amount of money put into it, these couldn't happen.

Quote:

As can be seen, this theory (often called the Labour Theory of Value -- or LTV for short) does not deny that consumers subjectively evaluate goods and that this evaluation can have a short term effect on price (which determines supply and demand). Many right-"libertarian" and mainstream economists assert that the labour theory of value removes demand from the determination of price. A favourite example is that of the "mud pie" -- if it takes the same labour as an apple pie to make, they ask, surely it has the same value (price)? These assertions are incorrect as the LTV bases itself on supply and demand and seeks to explain the dynamics of prices and so recognises (indeed bases itself on the fact) that individuals make their own decisions based upon their subjective needs (in the words of Proudhon, "utility is the necessary condition for exchange." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 77]). What the LTV seeks to explain is price (i.e. exchange value) -- and a good can only have an exchange value if others desire it (i.e. has a use value for them and they seek to exchange money or goods for it). Thus the example of the "mud pie" is a classic straw man argument -- the "mud pie" does not have an exchange value as it has no use value to others and is not subject to exchange. In other words, if a commodity cannot be exchanged, it cannot have an exchange value (and so price). As Proudhon argued, "nothing is exchangeable if it be not useful." [Op. Cit., p. 85]

Quote:

Quote:
The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their satisfaction.

I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction." I can judge the value of a thing without looking at it's price. You can ask me what I would buy it for, and I could give you a price I would pay based on how much I value it.

So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?

Quote:

Quote:
While the STV is handy for describing the price of works of art (and we should note that the LTV can also provide an explanation for this), there is little point having an economic theory which ignores the nature of the vast majority of economic activity in society.

All value can be determined subjectively. It has to be. Value differs from person to person. If eggs are being sold for $1 a dozen, the fact that some people buy those eggs and others don't illustrates that some people think those eggs are worth more than one dollar and others believe they are worth less than one dollar. For example, if I don't have a refridgerator (or any room in it), and I couldn't sell them (who'd want to buy eggs from someone more questionable than a store? It is food after all,) you'd have to give them to me free to get rid of them. LTV appears to assert that there's an underlying value that supply and demand act around, but that isn't consistent with an example like this. There is a general tendency for things which require more labor to sell for more. But that doesn't determine value.

Labor regulates exchange-value.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history. You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work. All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."

Do you disagree with the idea that anything the government does at present which is in demand, protection, roads, firefighting, etc, could be provided by the market without resorting to taxation?

There are two possibilities for any political or economic subject, the government and the market. Varying degrees of government fall under government.

Every specific statist intervention has been a failure in one or another sense. Democracy, which people seem to have some kind of irrational affection for, and which they believe somehow solves all problems, fails to respect the minority, be it 1% or 49%, while the market, on the other hand, serves the minority.

Hong Kong is one of the freest markets in the world, and look at the wealth they're building there. That's the power of the market. The USSR had one of the most unfree markets in the world, and look what happened there. That's the power of government.

Government and market are in direct opposition by nature.

Statist programs differ in degree, but not in kind or result. All moves toward socialism take us from Hong Kong toward USSR, both in policy and in economic results.

Empirical evidence that anarchy works exists in the day-to-day anarchy we live in. It exists in the market we buy and sell through. A free market is one which has no rulers, one which is anarchic. It is a market without taxes, price controls, regulations, licensing, or other government policies, all of which are detrimental to the market.

If you're looking for a successful society without a government, I'm afraid there isn't much evidence for that. Suppose I was an atheist before Darwin's theory of speciation through evolution. Am I wrong because there is something my opponents can point to and smugly feel victorious (creationism) and I have no such thing which meets their parameters (evolution not being thought up yet)? Suppose Christians had managed to nip evolution in the bud and kill Darwin before he thought up evolution, and nobody else thought it up. Is atheism wrong now that there is something atheism can't explain? No. Nor is anarchism wrong because there isn't some existing society that anarchists can point to and say "This is exactly what we want."

Quote:
You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?

The theist is the one that says he knows what is best for everybody. I don't claim that anarchy is best for everybody, I'm fine with you going off and forming your own voluntary "country", as long as it's voluntary. Anarchy is flexible like that. The market is flexible like that. Government is not. Government is the means to the end shared by all people who believe they know what is best for everybody. It's not possible for one person, or one group of people, to know what is best for everyone. People have to decide that for themselves.

The viability of a free market is a good reason to have it. The absence of aggression, by government or otherwise, is another good reason. I argue from either perspective.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:

Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history.

Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners. --Edward Abbey

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:The price would be

qbg wrote:
The price would be the exchange-value. Value as you use it seems to be closer to a concept of utility.

Noted.

qbg wrote:
If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?

You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?

Quote:
As can be seen, this theory (often called the Labour Theory of Value -- or LTV for short) does not deny that consumers subjectively evaluate goods and that this evaluation can have a short term effect on price (which determines supply and demand). Many right-"libertarian" and mainstream economists assert that the labour theory of value removes demand from the determination of price. A favourite example is that of the "mud pie" -- if it takes the same labour as an apple pie to make, they ask, surely it has the same value (price)? These assertions are incorrect as the LTV bases itself on supply and demand and seeks to explain the dynamics of prices and so recognises (indeed bases itself on the fact) that individuals make their own decisions based upon their subjective needs (in the words of Proudhon, "utility is the necessary condition for exchange." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 77]). What the LTV seeks to explain is price (i.e. exchange value) -- and a good can only have an exchange value if others desire it (i.e. has a use value for them and they seek to exchange money or goods for it). Thus the example of the "mud pie" is a classic straw man argument -- the "mud pie" does not have an exchange value as it has no use value to others and is not subject to exchange. In other words, if a commodity cannot be exchanged, it cannot have an exchange value (and so price). As Proudhon argued, "nothing is exchangeable if it be not useful." [Op. Cit., p. 85]

LTV is different than I thought it was. Maybe I was trying to refute some bastardized version of it.

qbg wrote:
So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?

It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.

Quote:
Labor regulates exchange-value.

You mean price? Supply and demand regulate the price. There's a positive correlation between labor and price under normal circumstances, but it's not a direct function of labor.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: qbg wrote:If

Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:
If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?

You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?

Sorry, the latter was meant to ask how you determine the value (as you put it) of the product.

Quote:

qbg wrote:
So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?

It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.

So you need to know the price to determine which one? If so, lets look at this again:
Quote:

I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."

Is that still your position, because to me it looks like you do need to know the price first before you can decide?

Quote:

Quote:
Labor regulates exchange-value.

You mean price? Supply and demand regulate the price. There's a positive correlation between labor and price under normal circumstances, but it's not a direct function of labor.

Yes price. Correct, price is not a direct function of labor. But labor does regulate the price -- it's simple to see. Why would the producer charge less than what the product costs to produce (in most cases)? If there was no barrier to entry in an industry where the price charged is much greater than the cost of producing the product (hence large profit), would you not try to move into that industry (assuming that the industry you are in now makes the move worthwhile)?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:

Hong Kong is one of the freest markets in the world, and look at the wealth they're building there.

Another [very big] quote:
Quote:

Firstly, like most examples of the wonders of a free market, it is not a democracy, it was a relatively liberal colonial dictatorship run from Britain. But political liberty does not rate highly with many supporters of laissez-faire capitalism (such as right-libertarians, for example). Secondly, the government owns all the land, which is hardly capitalistic, and the state has intervened into the economy many times (for example, in the 1950s, one of the largest public housing schemes in history was launched to house the influx of about 2 million people fleeing Communist China). Thirdly, Hong Kong is a city state and cities have a higher economic growth rate than regions (which are held back by large rural areas). Fourthly, according to an expert in the Asian Tiger economies, "to conclude . . . that Hong Kong is close to a free market economy is misleading." [Robert Wade, Governing the Market, p. 332]

Wade notes that:

"Not only is the economy managed from outside the formal institutions of government by the informal coalition of peak private economic organisations [notably the major banks and trading companies, which are closely linked to the life-time expatriates who largely run the government. This provides a "point of concentration" to conduct negotiations in line with an implicit development strategy], but government itself also has available some unusual instruments for influencing industrial activity. It owns all the land. . . It controls rents in part of the public housing market and supplies subsidised public housing to roughly half the population, thereby helping to keep down the cost of labour. And its ability to increase or decrease the flow of immigrants from China also gives it a way of affecting labour costs." [Ibid.]

Wade notes that "its economic growth is a function of its service role in a wider regional economy, as entrepot trader, regional headquarters for multinational companies, and refuge for nervous money." [Op. Cit., p. 331]. In other words, an essential part of its success is that it gets surplus value produced elsewhere in the world. Handling other people's money is a sure-fire way of getting rich (see Henwood's Wall Street to get an idea of the sums involved) and this will have a nice impact on per-capita income figures (as will selling goods produced sweat-shops in dictatorships like China).


Ok, I know you probably won't agree with some parts of it.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I said one of the freest. I

I said one of the freest. I didn't say totally free. I was aware that Hong Kong wasn't a perfect example, however it's more visible than pure free markets, which must operate underground and remain difficult to see to avoid being destroyed by government intervention.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:
If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?

You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?

Sorry, the latter was meant to ask how you determine the value (as you put it) of the product.

Psychic value. There's a value I anticipate to get from it. What I actually get out of it may be more or less than I expect, but a best guess is reliable enough.

qbg wrote:

Quote:

qbg wrote:
So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?

It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.

So you need to know the price to determine which one? If so, lets look at this again:
Quote:

I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."

Is that still your position, because to me it looks like you do need to know the price first before you can decide?

First let me put that back into context:

Quote:
Quote:
The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their satisfaction.

I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."

Looking back I misinterpeted, so I retract that statement.

Marginal utility doesn't set prices. Supply and demand set prices. I don't know what I was thinking when I replied the first time. Now I feel kinda dumb.

Quote:
Yes price. Correct, price is not a direct function of labor. But labor does regulate the price -- it's simple to see.

Supply and demand set product prices.
Product prices set factor-of-production prices.
If factor-of-production prices exceed product prices, the producer incurs a loss. Production ceases.
The existing supply is allowed to fall, which raises the price until Factor-of-production prices are lower than product prices. Then, production resumes.

This is how the common price range is determined. Obviously factor-of-production prices, including labor, play a major part in setting the normal price under normal (no shortage/surplus) circumstances. I don't contest that.

The LTV as I've understood it prior to this conversation holds that value and price are identical and objective. I believed this because as I understood, Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.

Quote:
Why would the producer charge less than what the product costs to produce (in most cases)?

If supply and demand put product prices below cost of production, they lower prices on existing supplies to get rid of them and cease production.

In most cases, they try to avoid this by not producing more than are in demand for the forseeable future.

Quote:
If there was no barrier to entry in an industry where the price charged is much greater than the cost of producing the product (hence large profit), would you not try to move into that industry (assuming that the industry you are in now makes the move worthwhile)?

Of course.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I believed this

Quote:

I believed this because as I understood, Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.

Taxes, Profit, Interest, and Rent all extract "surplus value" from the worker. (So when you object to taxes you are objecting to a form of surplus value)...

Quote:

In other words, the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced. The labour contained in these "surplus-products" is the source of profit, which has to be realised on the market (in practice, of course, the value represented by these surplus-products is distributed throughout all the commodities produced in the form of profit -- the difference between the cost price and the market price). In summary, surplus value is unpaid labour and hence capitalism is based on exploitation. As Proudhon noted, "Products, say economists, are only bought by products. This maxim is property's condemnation. The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief." [Op. Cit., p. 170]

and
Quote:

Or, to use Bakunin's words, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and so "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187] This domination is the source of the surplus, for "wage slavery is not a consequence of exploitation -- exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination. The employment contract creates the capitalist as master; he has the political right to determine how the labour of the worker will be used, and -- consequently -- can engage in exploitation." [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149]

and given that there are a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor power to survive (legally), you arive at exploitation.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
For purposes of this post,

For purposes of this post, "Capitalist" refers to an owner of the means of production. And just for the record, I don't particularly like big business or the sale of labor to a capitalist who sells it to a customer, I just think if it's voluntary, nothing is wrong with it.

qbg wrote:
Taxes, Profit, Interest, and Rent all extract "surplus value" from the worker. (So when you object to taxes you are objecting to a form of surplus value)...

Taxes extract anything from anyone. I object to taxes not because of "surplus value" but because they're paid under threat of violence, they're involuntary.
Profit could be said to extract surplus value from the worker, but I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Interest is a natural occurance arising from people's time prefrences (preferring less now to more later). Again, not a bad thing.
Rent is payment for sale of a good/service. Once again, there's nothing bad about it.

Quote:
In other words, the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced.

Not true. Some companies sell at a loss.

Quote:
In summary, surplus value is unpaid labour and hence capitalism is based on exploitation.

I disagree. Labor is paid whatever labor chooses to accept. They value their own time and energy less than the capitalist values it, so the capitalist buys it. If everyone engages in this voluntary, they do so because they believe it to be good for them.

This is what I mean by the LTV being an "objective value" theory. "if V(c)-V(l)>0, then exploitation". Value is subjective, it can't be compared between the laborer [V(l)], the capitalist [V(c)], and the customer, not even by price, which is set by supply and demand. Attempting to apply math to it is absurd because values can't be compared between individuals, only within individuals.

If a surplus value exists for the capitalist, a surplus value also exists for the laborer, who sees the work he does as less valuable than the pay he recieves. When everyone is voluntarily trading, they do so because the believe what they are getting is more valuable than what they are giving up. This means a surplus value exists for everyone.

I don't believe exploitation to be inherently bad. Slavery is bad because slavery is exploitation at gunpoint. Working for a wage is not slavery, as doing work is voluntary. If your goal is to avoid someone making a profit off you, it would be advisable to simply go into work for yourself, buy your own tools of production, and interact directly with your customers.

Quote:
Or, to use Bakunin's words, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and so "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187]

As long as it is voluntary I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. A worker could get himself out of the factory and perform the same job for the customers directly...he would still just be getting paid money to do work like he was before. And while he might be getting paid more money, he also bears the risk involved in lack of predictability. He becomes a smalltime capitalist and simply makes a profit off the sale of his own labor. Is he exploiting himself to do this?

Quote:
This domination is the source of the surplus, for "wage slavery is not a consequence of exploitation -- exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination. The employment contract creates the capitalist as master; he has the political right to determine how the labour of the worker will be used, and -- consequently -- can engage in exploitation." [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149]

As long as it is voluntary, there is nothing inherently wrong with it by my book.

Quote:
and given that there are a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor power to survive (legally), you arive at exploitation.

They do have a choice whether or not they want to survive.

Question: If a freelance mechanic repairs someone's car and accepts pay, is there exploitation? Is the mechanic being exploited by selling his time and labor to someone else and becoming a temporary slave? Is he exploiting himself by making a profit off his labor? Is he being exploited by the car's owner who pays him to perform labor? Is he exploiting the car's owner?

Personally, that is the kind of production under capitalism that I prefer, in which most people are entrepreneurial and fewer are paid wages by anyone other than the customer. I'm not gonna force people to do it, and it's not well adapted to some industries, but I see it as better for everyone in most cases.


MustangGT
MustangGT's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history.

It was not the "governments" that made these "nations" successful. 

 

Quote:
You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work.

What are you talking about? It is all around you. Every time you engage in an interaction or a transaction that doesnt involve a forced big brother conrolling it, that is anarchy. 

Quote:
 All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."

And all you have is an idealistic notion that "the government will take care of it"

Quote:
 You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?

The strongest argument for anarchy is the moral argument. Here is a laymans version of it: "Coercion is wrong, even if the coercers have shiny badges or nice suits or claim to represent the "public interest"."

No gods, no governments.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Things that would change

Things that would change under anarchy from government today:

Very little in the things we do. We're going to have to break a few eggs, but we'll get one fine omelet.

People would have no protection under the law, there is no law. This is both good and bad. Having legal recourse is beneficial if some wrong has fallen upon you. At the same time we live in a very litigious society, where you can actually be sued to calling someone names. Think of the amount of money saved by not running a court system.

So, some people are going to settle their disputes with violence that otherwise would not. At the same time, those in a black market would be less prone to violence because without government there is no black market. No more prohibition.

Conglomerates will continue. Some which are held back by government will thrive. Others living off government will falter. Big deal. 

Zhwazi wrote:
Patents ...If you have an idea that you think will make you money, tell it to only a few people, get NDAs with them, and work it in secret. If it can't be done like that, what can I say? Too bad.

NDA's have no value with anarchy. "Too bad" isn't good enough, but it will have to do. The best thing in that case would be annoucing your work loudly. Get your name on it. 

Much would change in who we are. Imagine earning double your current income. The average American loses 50% of their income through taxes of one kind or another. Incomes and cost of living would be much smaller. Without taxes there would be no inflation. This can be observed by looking at the inflation rate in the US. There was no inflation at all until 1913.

Freedom to come and go as you please. Ah. Do what you want.

Everything gets better, roads, medicine, radio, Internet. For those with a 56k modem, government mandate caps the speed at 53k, so much for technology. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
The only flaws I find in

The only flaws I find in anarchy are:

1. there is no defined law and order and no punishment for crime. Without some guide murdering somebody for playing their car stereo too loud would be just. Ok, sure, then that person has to face the friends of the other, and they kill, and so on. Democracy is bad. The ultimate example of democracy is a linch mob. What if someone is wrongly accused of a crime? Wihtout due process they have no protection, other than to shoot it out. One against the whole city? People are very quick to judge, it would happen, count on it. In my city I'd be first to go, "the atheist did it."

2. the people aren't active enough. And this is the problem with our Constitutional government. If Canada attacks the United States, for whatever reason, just because it is completely legal to own any weapon you desire doesn't mean that everyone will. Likely only about half would own any of any kind. And of those that do how many are willing to fight? I'd like to think otherwise but the course of history shows that too few are willing to fight for their freedom. The downfall there is those that are willing will lose.

Virtually all of the laws and prohibitions in force today were requested by the people, even if wrongly influenced. "Not in my back yard", and "somebody should do something about this", and "god said" drive almost all legislation. People as a whole don't want freedom.

Don't assume that because it would be stupid to attack an Anarcho-capitalist country it would not happen. Hitler, Mussolini, the old USSR, and a whole host of religious nutcases are examples.  Logic is irrelevent for them. Join me or die.

3. Assuming there is any sort of police and justice system, if privatived it would never likely be neutral. Religion, race, gender, and such would most certainly place bias into it. This is not to say that a government system would not be the same.

4. Certain things will not work well privatized. Roadways for example. Libertarians are all in favor of tollways, it's a user fee, pay for what you use. Perfect, except when government runs it, efficiency and all that. But every road? the street in my neighborhood leading to my house? It was there before I moved in. And it's old. Insuring that these things are paid for properly is difficult if not impossible. And getting from point a to b, there's one road and you aren't allowed to use it. They're all private. Private roads would be on private property. Or can we set aside land for public use with no ownership, including government? Great. Until somebody decides to claim it.

Not that a federal highway system is any better, don't get the wrong idea. And naturally roads would be cheaper and last longer. But if we're going to share them there needs to be a method of sharing the cost. Add again people's prejudices. Government roads at the city or county level perhaps?

Otherwise I'm all for it. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Marx used it to

Quote:
Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.

Right on. People, please do not let wealth envy or disgust for greed cloud your judgement. In the United States the wealthy are the most penalized. They became so through wealth envy. Government knew they could get away with it. But those wealthy host huge portions of the workforce and represent the bulk of the cashflow. Penalizing them at all, along with the rest is bad for the economy.

Don't hate Bill Gates because he's wealthy, admire him, try to learn. Don't buy his products if you don't like them. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: People

Eric Ferguson wrote:
People would have no protection under the law, there is no law.

Not in the sense we know it today. There would be property law. Meaning, I own my land, I set the rules, the "law" for my land. If you break the rules, get off my land or you're considered an intruder, basically. You could have courts in anarchy. Stateless courts existed in Celtic Ireland. It would obviously work very differently from what we have today, but I kinda outlined the system I envision in a post on my blog. Before you have to ask, a murder investigation would go the same way, except it would be the life insurance company trying to make sure the guy paid the full cost of your policy, so if you take out a life insurance policy for $1 million, the killer would have some massive repayment due. So take out a really big policy. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
NDA's have no value with anarchy.

Yes they do. If the NDA reads "Person A agrees not to reveal X. If person A reveals X, he consents to enforcement by person B up to the limit of $100,000", or something like that, you're B and they're A, if they try to sue, just show that contract to the court. 

 

Quote:
Without taxes there would be no inflation. This can be observed by looking at the inflation rate in the US. There was no inflation at all until 1913.

Taxes do not cause inflation.

Until relatively recently, the word "inflation" referred to an increase the money supply. It was generally recognized that such an increase in the money supply also increased prices. If you know basic economics, you know how supply, demand, and price are related. As the supply goes up, the price comes down. As the money supply increases, the value of each monetary unit goes down.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Ever since, the government has been printing money, which increases the money supply, which decreases the value of money.

Really, the total value of all dollars remains constant in a stagnant economy. So doubling the money supply halves the value of each unit of money. 


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Let me add one thing to

Let me add one thing to Zhwazi's list at the beginning. One major problem with government, particularly today is market influence.

When political leaders have investment interests in foreign currency or oil, how could they ever truly be impartial in matters of foreign policy? Or if they have vested interest in the market?

Here's one, the new federal minimum wage. It affects every State and US territory, except for Samoa. Del Monte has a factory there, representing almost all of the island's work force. Del Monte headquarters is in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco.

Former press secretary Fleischer has dual citizenship. Suppose he's neutral? 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: The

Eric Ferguson wrote:

The only flaws I find in anarchy are:

1. there is no defined law and order and no punishment for crime.

Addressed in my previous post in this thread.

Quote:
2. the people aren't active enough.

The American Revolution was fought by a tiny minority, and to my knowledge, didn't even have majority support. As for Canada invading, it wouldn't be pretty for the Canadian leadership. I think that most people would have protection agencies, and I think many of those agencies would give people policy discounts for owning guns, because that would make the task of defending people far easier.

Quote:
Don't assume that because it would be stupid to attack an Anarcho-capitalist country it would not happen.

It wouldn't be stupid, it would be damn-near impossible. One of the things invaders do is hijack the existing state apparatus and use the existing government's resources against it's own people. Anarchocapitalism would have no such power structure to take over. And in an anarchocapitalist society, governments wouldn't be reguarded as a "necessary evil" (obviously, as they'd been getting along without it, they couldn't call it necessary), just an evil. It wouldn't be easy to get people to obey the commands with all these conditions combined, and the PDAs to deal with. 

Quote:
3. Assuming there is any sort of police and justice system, if privatived it would never likely be neutral.

Courts which were not neutral would not recieve customers. 

Quote:
4. Certain things will not work well privatized. Roadways for example.

Not all Libertarians support tollroads. I believe the highways would become tollroads, but I think for the road leading into your neighborhood would be jointly owned by the neighbors.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Not all

Zhwazi wrote:
Not all Libertarians support tollroads. I believe the highways would become tollroads, but I think for the road leading into your neighborhood would be jointly owned by the neighbors.

The ones I know that don't like toll roads are because they are run by the government, they've not really visited the idea of a private toll road.

I'm sure the road into my neighborhood would be owned jointly by the neighbors. The question is on how to fairly pay for it. I use the road a lot more than the widow next door. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


MustangGT
MustangGT's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: The

Eric Ferguson wrote:

The ones I know that don't like toll roads are because they are run by the government, they've not really visited the idea of a private toll road.

I'm sure the road into my neighborhood would be owned jointly by the neighbors. The question is on how to fairly pay for it. I use the road a lot more than the widow next door. 

It would probably be a hybrid payment system: a flat rate, with a fee-per-use charged after a certain # of road uses in X amount of time. Similar to a cellphone bill where you pay X dollars per month plus X amount for minutes used above a given threshold.

No gods, no governments.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Until

Zhwazi wrote:
Until relatively recently, the word "inflation" referred to an increase the money supply. It was generally recognized that such an increase in the money supply also increased prices. If you know basic economics, you know how supply, demand, and price are related. As the supply goes up, the price comes down. As the money supply increases, the value of each monetary unit goes down.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Ever since, the government has been printing money, which increases the money supply, which decreases the value of money.

Really, the total value of all dollars remains constant in a stagnant economy. So doubling the money supply halves the value of each unit of money. 


First a problem: You are ignoring credit. And because the amount of credit is determined from the economy's performance, the money supply will change with the economy.

Another thing is that inflation increases profits (by devaluing labor). I would doubt that this has nothing to do with the source(s) of inflation.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Hi there.  I'm new to this

Hi there.  I'm new to this site but would like post a few general replies to Zhwazi's "official" anarchism, and a summary or what his world would be like if implemented.  I'll try to be as polite as possible.  I've read through the entire thread, and find it on the whole apalling.  But keep in mind I'm an Anarchist, or for the purposes of this thread an "Anarcho-sydicalist", "marxist", "anarchosocialist", "idiot", "moron", etc.

 

Tiberian and others sufficiently blew holes in a society where "anarchy" combines with huge private ownership, property, and capitalism.  There will be people with huge amounts of resources oppressing large sections of people who don't.  This isn't a problem for Zhwazi, evolution will kill off all the poor and who cares?  Its their fault for being poor in the first place.  So lets see how free this society will be both on from the viewpoint of the oppressor and the oppressed.  Oppressor: those with land, Oppressed: those without.

 

Oppressed:  Ok, lets assume I'm a poor slob too stupid and without the genetic superiority inherent in the wealthy.  Something happens to me and I can't make a rent payment, I'm out on the street.  I can't move without being arrested (at best) by any number of courts and "protection agencies".  Every speck of land is privately owned, and very likely riddled with mines to keep people like me OUT.  Each privately owned parcel of land has its own rules and regulations that are impossible to keep track of, and the owner of the land ends up owning your very LIFE if you do not follow them.  I could end up being his property by anything from stealing some food, to stepping accidentily on his property, to looking at him wrong, to wearing a purple shirt.  Its his land, his rules.  Let's assume that somehow I avoid being maimed, killed, or arrested and manage to immediately find a job.  Of course in such desperation the employer sets the terms.  I'll be doing manual labor on his property for the cost of food and board, set on his terms and bought from him.  Anything I screw up, anytime I can't work because of the rain or anything else, hey I still live there and eat don't I?  I'm in debt, and will work there for the rest of my life.  I could "quit" and go where?  On someone elses property who can instantly enslave me for trespassing?

 

Oppressor:  Now lets assume I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, but someone with the brains and genetic makeup required to be wealthy.  Not amazingly so, I'm not the biggest fish in the pond (or the biggest dolphin-man hybrid) but I've got some land, a few slaves, a protection agency that has that has some heavy machine guns.  I manufacture something on my own land, and my slaves do the work.  I'd like to pay them, but everyone uses slaves and they are so easy to come by; my product would fail in the marketplace if I paid them extra money beyond food and rent.  Some people like Tiberian don't agree with my anarchist lifestyle, so I have my land properly fortified with mines, guards, bombs, and tripwires.  Never mind the roaming masses that decide to reject slavery.  I even take my turn every day manning the machine guns to keep people out, I'm not big enough to lay around and do nothing yet.  However there are people below me, the slaves, the guards, people who would love to have my slice of the dream, so I'm constantly on my guard and am forced to be ruthless with dissenters, because if not they will sense weakness and my orders will not be followed.  This is my land and I expect my orders to be followed.  I'm also constantly on edge about bigger fish coming in and stealing what I have, after all they have more money, better more favorable courts, higher tech weapons...I have to pay tribute to these larger fish to keep them out.  

 

Both, opppressed and oppressors, have rulers and lack freedom.  Doesn't sound like anarchy to me. 

 

 


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Not just that,

Not just that, but........the entire concept of capitalism is in direct conflict with anarchy.  Unlike possession, ownership is a subjective concept that can only exist with government or mass popular support.  If I decided that I wanted to own the moon, I'd have to get the governments of the world to recognize that title.  A truely anarchist society couldn't and wouldn't respect such a claim.  That also goes for any unreasonable claim to any property here on earth.  Without that recognition and the support of the government, the owner is left to possess the claim by any means nessessary.  Private security, private armies, and sure land mines would be very effective.   

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I have questions for

I have questions for libertarian supporters. Do not consider this a criticizm in any way, I'm merely seeking clarification on an issue I have never seen clarified(which does not mean it has not been, just that I've not seen it).

How would a libertarian society defend itself against a dictatorship(merely an example, democracy or monarchy or other government forms applicable in context)? How would a libertarian society prevent a dictatorship(etc) from arising within it?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote: Hi there. I'm

kriz wrote:

Hi there. I'm new to this site but would like post a few general replies to Zhwazi's "official" anarchism, and a summary or what his world would be like if implemented.

 <snip>

 

Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich. Anarchocapitalists use "anarchy" in the sense of "no government", with a government being a geographic monopoly claiming territory other than it's rightfully owned land and usually selling retributive justice at monopoly prices.

 There are two kinds of freedom. Pure freedom and liberty. Usually when I use the word freedom I mean liberty, but let me differentiate here, since you seem to not get it.

Pure freedom = do whatever you want.

Liberty = Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others. 

Liberty is not pure freedom. You seem to believe that any lack of pure freedom negates any 'anarchy'. Anarchy and the limits of liberty are compatible.

There's some fundamental element of libertarianism you just don't seem to get, I can't tell which. You might be thinking class warfare to the point that you're blind to something you should be seeing. Like maybe that just because people can do something doesn't mean they will, or the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote: Not

ShadowOfMan wrote:

Not just that, but........the entire concept of capitalism is in direct conflict with anarchy. Unlike possession, ownership is a subjective concept that can only exist with government or mass popular support. If I decided that I wanted to own the moon, I'd have to get the governments of the world to recognize that title. A truely anarchist society couldn't and wouldn't respect such a claim. That also goes for any unreasonable claim to any property here on earth. Without that recognition and the support of the government, the owner is left to possess the claim by any means nessessary. Private security, private armies, and sure land mines would be very effective.

Bad example. Original ownership comes from removing something from the commons. The ocean, the moon, the sun, these are all parts of the commons, they're unowned. If you want to own them, you have to remove them from the common state. Land is originally owned by being fenced in or cultivated or something like that, the same principle could apply on the ocean (put a fence around a small patch in the middle of the atlantic and you own that patch), the moon, asteroids, etc. You don't have to get a government to support it.

Ownership is subjective, yes. As I see it there are two classes, those with ownership and those without. If you do not respect others' ownership of property, you forfiet any obligation of others to respect your ownership of property, including yourself. Lets call someone with ownership a "person" and someone without it an "animal". If one man owns something, and no others respect it, then the one man still owns it, but being only one man with no others who respect ownership, he can obligate nobody to not act in this way, any more than you have a right to life which can't be deprived by a pack of wolves, that would be stupid. The concept and the ownership still exist even without majority support. The majority are simply animals. Ownership only obligates a person, not an animal, so if there is a very small pool of owners, there is just a very small pool of people who respect each others' rights to property, it doesn't make it nonexistant.

The "X is not really anarchy" arguement isn't going to fly with me. Most forms of anarchism contend that all other forms are not really anarchy. I could say that anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are not true anarchy for any number of reasons. The arguement is too stupid and irrelevant to be worth the effort.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: How would a

Vastet wrote:
How would a libertarian society defend itself against a dictatorship(merely an example, democracy or monarchy or other government forms applicable in context)? How would a libertarian society prevent a dictatorship(etc) from arising within it?

Well first of all, you could actually have a dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, whatever, and still have anarchy, as long as they aren't trying to force their will on others. The best way to sustain it would be to only be dictatorial, democratic, monarchic, etc. over people who wanted a leader or wanted democracy. Then nobody would have any reason to oppose it. Three neighbors could, for example, be one self-governor, one who lets themself be controlled by a democratic process involving others who agree to democratic rule, and one who obeys the Queen of England, they can all coexist if they don't try to force the others to do as they do. The self-governor has no more right to force the democrat or the subject to self-govern than the subject has to force the democrat or self-governor to obey the Queen.

When people try to force others into democracy or monarchy, then we have a problem. Not only does it lead to violent retaliation, it also tarnishes the image of the democracy or monarchy and makes people resent it. The Protection Agencies would have a lot to gain by stopping a group of violent democrats or subjects, like for example, all of their customers. Even competing companies would cooperate to protect their customers from such a violent monopoly. 


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Strawman.

Zhwazi wrote:

Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich.

 This statement directly contradicts others you made earlier in the thread.  I will dig them up for you if you request it.

 

Quote:
Anarchocapitalists use "anarchy" in the sense of "no government"

At the beginning of the thread you defined "anarchism" correctly as meaning "no rulers".  That is not the same as "no government".  I realize its a fine line, but its an important distinction.  You could have a completely democratic government where all laws and decisions are made by a vote, and there is no one person in charge. 

Quote:

There are two kinds of freedom. Pure freedom and liberty. Usually when I use the word freedom I mean liberty, but let me differentiate here, since you seem to not get it.

Pure freedom = do whatever you want.

Liberty = Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others.

Liberty is not pure freedom. You seem to believe that any lack of pure freedom negates any 'anarchy'. Anarchy and the limits of liberty are compatible.

 

I still don't get it...you advocate owning a person's life and body if they break any laws you invent on your own property.  I don't see the line being drawn between "libery" and "freedom", it's drawn with your society on one side and liberty AND freedom far away on the other. 

Quote:
There's some fundamental element of libertarianism you just don't seem to get, I can't tell which. You might be thinking class warfare to the point that you're blind to something you should be seeing. Like maybe that just because people can do something doesn't mean they will, or the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty.

 You are right.  The fundamental element of libertarianism I don't get is your (IMHO) irrational advocation of property rights.  Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around?  I realize that it is engrained in our society from birth that this is how we divide the world, and would love to hear a rational argument in favor of property rights.  I fear, however, its just an automatic belief instilled in people growing up in a capitalist world.  After all, we all need land to stand on.  We all need water to drink.  We all need air to breath.  What exactly gives you the right to take these away from people?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote: Zhwazi

kriz wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich.

This statement directly contradicts others you made earlier in the thread. I will dig them up for you if you request it.

I went and found it. And I said it wouldn't be expensive to mine a yard with tannerite. Now, tannerite is a homemade low explosive used for making shooting targets. You'd put it in a little baggie and shoot at the baggie. When the baggie explodes, you know you've hit the target. The point in "mining" a yard with tannerite (I don't believe I ever talked about actual pressure-sensitive landmines) is that if someone isn't respecting your property rights, such explosions as would result from shooting the tannerite bags in the same yard as the offender is in would certainly scare them off or convince them not to return, and while it could certainly do some damage, ideally you don't want to kill them as badly as you want them to keep out. Such "mining" does not blow your leg off if you step onto property other than your own. If you did that, you'd probably have your pants sued off.

 

Quote:
At the beginning of the thread you defined "anarchism" correctly as meaning "no rulers". That is not the same as "no government". I realize its a fine line, but its an important distinction. You could have a completely democratic government where all laws and decisions are made by a vote, and there is no one person in charge.

What's the practical difference to me whether I am being ruled by 1000 tyrants 1 mile away or 1 tyrant 1000 miles away? 

Quote:
I still don't get it...you advocate owning a person's life and body if they break any laws you invent on your own property. I don't see the line being drawn between "libery" and "freedom", it's drawn with your society on one side and liberty AND freedom far away on the other.

If someone is not respecting your *ownership* of that property is what I mean. For example, you can come on my property and stand in my yard and I couldn't deprive you of ownership of yourself (i.e. rightfully shoot you) until you didn't respect my will with my property, or you were doing overt damage to my property. If it's my will that you stay off my lawn then I'd at least have to tell you to get off the lawn before actually using any violence (although a threat would be perfectly just). If I just start shooting at you because you're cutting a corner on the sidewalk or something, then I'm in the wrong.

If you do not respect my property rights, then I am not obligated to respect yours. If you are on my lawn, you are not necessarily disrespecting my property rights. If you come to the knowledge that I don't want you there and you stay anyways, then you are disrespecting my property rights. If you are causing actual damage to my property (i.e. using a rototiller on my beautiful suburban lawn), then you are disrespecting my property rights. 

 

Quote:
You are right. The fundamental element of libertarianism I don't get is your (IMHO) irrational advocation of property rights.

All rights are property rights. The only reason it's wrong for me to enslave you is because you have exclusive rightful ownership of your body and I don't, and I'm depriving you of a property right in yourself if I enslave you. You own your life. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own your liberty. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own the product of your liberty, that being your property. If I build a factory, I owned the liberty and the body which built it, should I not have the same rights over the property I make? And in order to get such property it is necessary to claim parts of the natural world around us. We cannot make things that solve our wants and needs if we can't grapple with the world around us.

In a world where there was no such thing as scarcity, ownership would be absurd. If everything was infinitely abundant, omnipresent, and uniform and of infinite quality, then there'd be absolutely no use for ownership whatsoever. But we live in a world where our wants are unlimited and our means are limited. If we're going to get anything we want, we have to be able to control resources. If we can't control the resources we need, we're not going to be able to satisfy our wants. If we can't own things beyond possession, we can't make the investments in the future that need to be made.

Quote:
Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around?

Well why not?

Quote:
I realize that it is engrained in our society from birth that this is how we divide the world, and would love to hear a rational argument in favor of property rights. I fear, however, its just an automatic belief instilled in people growing up in a capitalist world.

It is very convenient for me that I don't have to prove it to everybody, certainly. Since most people assume it, it makes my job easier. But if it's challenged, I try to be able to prove it. 

Quote:
After all, we all need land to stand on. We all need water to drink. We all need air to breath. What exactly gives you the right to take these away from people?

 You don't need land to stand on. I'm personally very interested in the seasteading concept, which would make the idea that you need land to stand on outdated. We all do need water to drink, yet we get this by trade, it's no arguement for abolishing ownership of water. We all need food to eat, would this not mean that nobody should be allowed to own food to the exclusion of others? And yes, we need air to breathe, but it's not as if the air is something that can just be claimed. What am I going to do, claim a cubic mile of air that's 2 miles up? Is it worth the effort to claim? No, of course not. But the principle of being able to own air is a good one. What would we do if we could not own air after we start hollowing out asteroids to live in? We'll need air to pressurize them, if we can't own air to the exclusion of anyone else, we can't rightfully take the air away. If I could claim a cubic mile of air and seal it off from the outside, if I suck all the air out and sell it to space colonies, I'm not violating anybody's rights. I'm not taking air away from people. 


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:

I went and found it. And I said it wouldn't be expensive to mine a yard with tannerite. Now, tannerite is a homemade low explosive... Such "mining" does not blow your leg off if you step onto property other than your own. If you did that, you'd probably have your pants sued off.

All that this means is you happen to be a nicer landlord than others. You use low grade explosives to scare people, others use medium or high grade to take people out...its a grey scale that would shift depending on the individual and the circumstances. And why couldn't I sue you for using low grade explosives on me? Why couldn't I sue you for not letting me walk on your property? I can go ahead and tell you your answer, because you "own the land". Anyone stepping on your land forfeits their property (their lives) to you, so they can't sue you for anything, even blowing their legs off with a landmine. I can't find the specific quote in the post, but I believe you said something along the lines of "each man makes his own laws in regards to his property". Let me know if you agree with that statement or not, since I can't find the quote.

You attempted to answer the mining question, but let me point out to you the two much more significant statements I hoped you would address:

Quote:
If you don't respect others, you lose your status of "person" and become "unowned property". If that happens, no courts that anyone pays attention to will hear a complaint by unowned property. If you can demonstrate that they were attacking you, you can demonstrate that they give up "person" status and become property, and you can do whatever you want with your own property.

and

Quote:
No no no...people convicted would have been found to violate someone else's ownership (read as "rights&quotEye-wink, and they'd thus have their ownership of themselves revoked.

and

Quote:
If you're found to not respect ownership, you lose your right to ownership. Including ownership of yourself. If you don't own yourself, you're unowned property and anyone can do whatever they want to you because your rights are revoked

 

and about the rich:

Quote:
The rich are rich because they think differently and better than the lower and middle classes. You don't think like them.

 

Those quotes were the ones I was referring to, in addition to the one about mining. Now back to your most recent post:

Quote:
What's the practical difference to me whether I am being ruled by 1000 tyrants 1 mile away or 1 tyrant 1000 miles away?

One's a community of your neighbors, each getting a say in how society will be run. The other is a dictatorship or one person enforcing anything he wants on you.

Quote:
If someone is not respecting your *ownership* of that property is what I mean. For example, you can come on my property and stand in my yard and I couldn't deprive you of ownership of yourself (i.e. rightfully shoot you) until you didn't respect my will with my property

What if your "will with your property" was that noone step on it? I admit alot of people, because of their compassion for humanity, would not go so far. But some would. Especially if you were a company looking for some free labor to compete in the marketplace.

Quote:
If it's my will that you stay off my lawn then I'd at least have to tell you to get off the lawn before actually using any violence (although a threat would be perfectly just).

Why exactly would you have to tell me to leave? What government or court imposed this regulation on you?

Quote:
If I just start shooting at you because you're cutting a corner on the sidewalk or something, then I'm in the wrong.

Others might not think they are in the wrong. Besides, who owns the sidewalk again?

Quote:
If you do not respect my property rights, then I am not obligated to respect yours. If you are on my lawn, you are not necessarily disrespecting my property rights. If you come to the knowledge that I don't want you there and you stay anyways, then you are disrespecting my property rights.

OK, so we've determined you're slightly nicer than the landlord next door, you let me cut across your property. What if Ive been wandering through private property for two days, and fall asleep on your lawn? You tell me to move and I dont.

Quote:

All rights are property rights. The only reason it's wrong for me to enslave you is because you have exclusive rightful ownership of your body and I don't, and I'm depriving you of a property right in yourself if I enslave you. You own your life. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own your liberty. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own the product of your liberty, that being your property.

I don't own my life and my body, I AM my life and my body. It is me. I cant leave it and get another one. Other than that, this statement of yours is noble in its own way but anyone of your courts with a different interest could make a decision otherwise. In fact, you've already said under certain conditions these rights would be void in your society anyway

Quote:
And in order to get such property it is necessary to claim parts of the natural world around us. We cannot make things that solve our wants and needs if we can't grapple with the world around us.

In a world where there was no such thing as scarcity, ownership would be absurd. If everything was infinitely abundant, omnipresent, and uniform and of infinite quality, then there'd be absolutely no use for ownership whatsoever.

On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. If resources were unlimited, everyone could own as much as they want and your society would have very few problems. The problem is finite resources, that EVERYONE needs to survive and to have a decent life. Why should one person be allowed to own all of the resources and deny them to the rest of the population? Or 2 people? Or 10, 100...

Quote:
Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around?

Well why not?

Because they would be killing off mass numbers of people who need land, water, and air to survive.

Quote:

It is very convenient for me that I don't have to prove it to everybody, certainly. Since most people assume it, it makes my job easier. But if it's challenged, I try to be able to prove it.

I am challenging you.

Quote:
You don't need land to stand on. I'm personally very interested in the seasteading concept, which would make the idea that you need land to stand on outdated.

Until all the sea is claimed as property, then where do you go?

Quote:
We all do need water to drink, yet we get this by trade, it's no arguement for abolishing ownership of water. We all need food to eat, would this not mean that nobody should be allowed to own food to the exclusion of others?

Unless you have nothing to trade because all the resources are owned by someone else. Water and food are heavily subsidized to keep them affordable to people in the USA. If you still can't find water or food, you can always wait until it rains or dig through the trash for food. Except in this world, the rain and trash is also owned and you are stealing, thus giving up yourself up to slavery.

Quote:
And yes, we need air to breathe, but it's not as if the air is something that can just be claimed. What am I going to do, claim a cubic mile of air that's 2 miles up?
Why not? Find a court that will do it, and use your protection agency to enforce your rights.

Quote:

If I could claim a cubic mile of air and seal it off from the outside, if I suck all the air out and sell it to space colonies, I'm not violating anybody's rights. I'm not taking air away from people.

Except for all those people still on Earth.

 

The basic problem is that as long as there are people with no resources, and others who own all the resources, those with no resources will never be content to sit back and let you charge them for the land they stand on, the water they drink, or the air they breathe. I would like you to imagine that you had not eaten in a couple weeks, and had not drunk any water in several days...would you not be desperate enough to violate someone's property to kepp yourself alive? And if you are caught you are reduced to a slave. The only way anarchy would be viable is if everyone had equal access to resources and thus had no good reason to attack their neighbor.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote: All that this

kriz wrote:

All that this means is you happen to be a nicer landlord than others. You use low grade explosives to scare people, others use medium or high grade to take people out...its a grey scale that would shift depending on the individual and the circumstances.

There are no "mid grade" explosives. There are low explosives which deflagrate and high explosives which detonate at supersonic rates. Lower on the scale from a low explosive is a fuel. Like gasoline.

High explosives tend to be expensive (except in the case of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer). Rigging up such explosives to mines isn't something you can just think be done and it will be done. If everyone was mining their yard, they'd have to spend a lot of money on these mines. They'd also run into the problem of, if a mine goes off, it's going to damage the property and lower it's value. Typically the damage done by a lawn tresspasser is far less than the cost of the mine, the mining, and the repair of the damage the mine would cause if it exploded. So people wouldn't be mining their yards.

Only reason I'd ever mine my yard is to keep the ATF and IRS out. Unless it's someone I know is coming to kill/arrest me and take all my stuff, they're not worth blowing up the lawn over. 

Quote:
And why couldn't I sue you for using low grade explosives on me?

You would have to prove that you incurred damage and that I was not acting defensively. 

Quote:
Why couldn't I sue you for not letting me walk on your property?

Because I own it and you don't. I have EXCLUSIVE absolute irresponsible control over it, and you don't. You have no rightful decisionmaking ability pertaining to my land. You have no right to walk on my land. I may permit it, but you are not entitled to it. 

 

Quote:
I can go ahead and tell you your answer, because you "own the land". Anyone stepping on your land forfeits their property (their lives) to you, so they can't sue you for anything, even blowing their legs off with a landmine.

No. They still own their lives. At least until they violate my property rights. Once they do that they get two options, leave or get shot at. It's just like if you came into my store and robbed the cashier. Put down the gun and the money and get out of my store, or you're going to get shot. If I shoot you first, then I'm violating your rights, even if you are on my property, you never by any overt act surrendered your right to own your life to me. The means of defense, landmine or bullet, is not relevant, as long as I was acting in defensively.

Quote:
I can't find the specific quote in the post, but I believe you said something along the lines of "each man makes his own laws in regards to his property". Let me know if you agree with that statement or not, since I can't find the quote.

I think I said that, although I don't like using the word "laws" to describe things, I only use that to illustrate the concept. As I normally use the word "laws" it pertains to someone other than the rightful owner claiming decisionmaking power over someone else. To try to show that anarchy isn't a total absence of rules that must be followed, but just government, I say "laws" in the sense of rules to be followed. 

Quote:
You attempted to answer the mining question, but let me point out to you the two much more significant statements I hoped you would address:

Quote:
If you don't respect others, you lose your status of "person" and become "unowned property". If that happens, no courts that anyone pays attention to will hear a complaint by unowned property. If you can demonstrate that they were attacking you, you can demonstrate that they give up "person" status and become property, and you can do whatever you want with your own property.

and

Quote:
No no no...people convicted would have been found to violate someone else's ownership (read as "rights&quotEye-wink, and they'd thus have their ownership of themselves revoked.

and

Quote:
If you're found to not respect ownership, you lose your right to ownership. Including ownership of yourself. If you don't own yourself, you're unowned property and anyone can do whatever they want to you because your rights are revoked

This doesn't mean if you walk on my property I own you. 

Quote:
and about the rich:

Quote:
The rich are rich because they think differently and better than the lower and middle classes. You don't think like them.

Those quotes were the ones I was referring to, in addition to the one about mining.

Rich think differently. The thing is, you can change the way you think. You don't inherit a way of thinking from your genes. You can learn ways of thinking from anyone. If you want to go on thinking the way the less successful members of society think, you won't go anywhere.

Quote:
One's a community of your neighbors, each getting a say in how society will be run. The other is a dictatorship or one person enforcing anything he wants on you.

That didn't answer the question. What's the difference to me? Either way I am not allowed to choose how to use my own property. My life, liberty, and property are in both cases, in the hands of people whos dominion over me is absolute and irresponsible, and corporately exclusive. 

Quote:
What if your "will with your property" was that noone step on it?

I'll tell you or put a sign out or something. It's stupid to expect people to obey rules they have no way of knowing. If you are not causing any damage and simply don't know what the rules of my property are, I can't say that you're disrespecting my ownership of property.

It's one thing to not know you're violating the rules, but fully intend to follow whatever rules exist. And it makes sense to assume you are a person until you show yourself to be an animal, so it would only make sense to assume you would follow the rules if you knew them.

It's another thing to know what the rules are, but completely disreguard them. It's another thing to actively destroy my property. These things will make you an animal.

Now, if you do destroy my property and want to keep your status as a person, you'd have to pay me restitution, make my property everything it was before and then a little bit more to compensate for the time I had to spend with the damaged property. 

Quote:
I admit alot of people, because of their compassion for humanity, would not go so far. But some would. Especially if you were a company looking for some free labor to compete in the marketplace.

I wouldn't own you just because you're on my land. You retain ownership of yourself until you surrender it by direspecting my rights.

Quote:
Why exactly would you have to tell me to leave? What government or court imposed this regulation on you?

I believe the correct word is "obligation", not "regulation". And to answer the question, you did. Because you still own yourself and for me to take ownership of you without you first giving up self-ownership.

Quote:
Others might not think they are in the wrong. Besides, who owns the sidewalk again?

Depends. In some neighborhoods you might have some group that holds it for common use, in some they might just be unowned, in some they'd be the property of the owner of the adjacent land. In some cases they might be considered property of whoever owns the road. The thing with anarchocapitalism is that I can only offer possibilities, I can't tell you exactly how it will be done. The market will decide that. 

Quote:
OK, so we've determined you're slightly nicer than the landlord next door, you let me cut across your property. What if Ive been wandering through private property for two days, and fall asleep on your lawn? You tell me to move and I dont.

If you don't move because you're asleep and didn't hear me, I'll wake you up and tell you to move then. If you don't move because you have no respect for ownership, then you're an animal, and I could do whatever I wanted. But I'd probably either leave you alone or drag you out into the road. 

Quote:
I don't own my life and my body, I AM my life and my body. It is me. I cant leave it and get another one.

Do you have rightful absolute exclusive irresponsible control over it? Yes.  Therefore you own it. You don't have to be able to sell something in order to own it.

Quote:
Other than that, this statement of yours is noble in its own way but anyone of your courts with a different interest could make a decision otherwise. In fact, you've already said under certain conditions these rights would be void in your society anyway

Such other courts would have to violate the principles and then it would just be a matter of acting in self-defense. The way I see the courts working could take up to three courts, it's not like one court would just be able to make silly rulings and they'd have to be respected.

Under conditions where you totally disreguard the entire concept of rightful exclusive absolute irresponsible control, then you inherently deny any right of ownership at all, so you would be inconsistent to assert that you have rightful claim to yourself but I don't have rightful claim to myself.

Quote:
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. If resources were unlimited, everyone could own as much as they want and your society would have very few problems.

But there would be no point in claiming exclusive ownership of anything because restitution would be self-providing. 

Quote:
The problem is finite resources, that EVERYONE needs to survive and to have a decent life.

I disagree. You have a negative right to life, meaning, nobody can kill you. You do not have a positive right to life, meaning, if you lack something you require to sustain your surviva, nobody is in any way obligated to provide it.

Quote:
Why should one person be allowed to own all of the resources and deny them to the rest of the population? Or 2 people? Or 10, 100...

It's impossible to own all of the resources. 

Quote:
Because they would be killing off mass numbers of people who need land, water, and air to survive.

No they wouldn't. How? 

Quote:
Until all the sea is claimed as property, then where do you go?

Three-dimensional. You could go up into airships, out into space, down underwater, down underground, the seabed, underneath the seabed, etc. 20 years ago there was still unowned land in Montana and such free to be homesteaded. In the time it would take us to cover the entire ocean, we'd be a spacefaring species. 

Quote:
Unless you have nothing to trade because all the resources are owned by someone else. Water and food are heavily subsidized to keep them affordable to people in the USA. If you still can't find water or food, you can always wait until it rains or dig through the trash for food. Except in this world, the rain and trash is also owned and you are stealing, thus giving up yourself up to slavery.

All the resources cannot be owned by one person or one small group of people. It's impossible in the nature of things. You have time and energy you can sell or trade, and this is what most people do.

Food and water are not heavily subsidized in the US. The price of sugar in the US is four times the world sugar price, because of tarriffs and regulations. It's so bad that Coca-Cola, who swore they'd never change their forumula after the incident that put "Classic" on the can, went and changed their formula replacing sugar with corn syrup. And that's just one example. As for water, you normally are not allowed to drill a well in many places, which would lower the costs involved in you getting water. The government gives itself a monopoly on the water, and pays for it through water bills, and subsidizes that through taxation. And taxation, as I've said earlier in this thread, is *not* progressive in the US.

Quote:
Why not? Find a court that will do it, and use your protection agency to enforce your rights.

But that would be a total waste of money. There's no profit to be had, why would I waste my precious time and energy to do that? It's just stupid. 

Quote:
Except for all those people still on Earth.

If I sealed it off, then all I did was create a big chamber and suck the air out of it. The air pressure in the rest of the planet does not change. The amount of air is less, but there is no "society" which has any rightful claim to the air. 

Quote:
The basic problem is that as long as there are people with no resources, and others who own all the resources, those with no resources will never be content to sit back and let you charge them for the land they stand on, the water they drink, or the air they breathe.

You've got a serious strawman in your head.

A rich/poor divide exists. Wanna know what stops the poor from becoming rich? The government. Regulations. Taxation. Incorporation. Favoritism. Sweethart deals. These things are all written to the advantage of the rich-at-present, because of who they are. Absent government, the poor would no longer have anything holding them back. There would be no more privileged class. The rich would have to compete with the poor on a fair playing field. Many of them can't do that. Their businesses would be eaten alive. The free market allows for theoretical failures like the one you're thinking of, but in practice this never manifests. We have a relatively tiny minority controlling all the wheat crop. And yet we all have bread or can get it with very little effort.

The only reason the rich/poor divide is what it is today is because of economic regulations. Without it, there would be nothing resembling one man owning almost everything, or one small group of men owning almost everything.

 

Quote:
I would like you to imagine that you had not eaten in a couple weeks, and had not drunk any water in several days...would you not be desperate enough to violate someone's property to kepp yourself alive?

I'd more likely trade with them. "I'll mow your lawn for a gallon of water and a loaf of bread?" "K" "Yay."

Quote:
And if you are caught you are reduced to a slave.

If you are caught stealing, yes.  

Quote:
The only way anarchy would be viable is if everyone had equal access to resources and thus had no good reason to attack their neighbor.

Anarchy as you describe it would reduce us to a world population of millions hunting wild animals for food. I rather like the industrialization that private ownership has allowed. 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
How would anarcho-capitalism

How would anarcho-capitalism come about?

Quote:

A rich/poor divide exists. Wanna know what stops the poor from becoming rich? The government. Regulations. Taxation. Incorporation. Favoritism. Sweethart deals. These things are all written to the advantage of the rich-at-present, because of who they are. Absent government, the poor would no longer have anything holding them back. There would be no more privileged class. The rich would have to compete with the poor on a fair playing field. Many of them can't do that. Their businesses would be eaten alive. The free market allows for theoretical failures like the one you're thinking of, but in practice this never manifests. We have a relatively tiny minority controlling all the wheat crop. And yet we all have bread or can get it with very little effort.

The rich know that the state is important to them, so they wouldn't support anarcho-capitalism.

So who would? The masses? Unless there is a big change, I would expect the rich to lead a new de facto state soon after anarcho-capitalism was established...

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How would

Quote:
How would anarcho-capitalism come about?

I dunno. There's infinite possibilities. The strategies I think are most likely to work are seasteading (self-sufficient modular floating platforms colonizing the oceans, organizing into governed groups completely voluntarily, or just organizing into groups without government, or even not grouping at all), mass civil disobedience (fill up the prisons so fast that we displace the imprisoned population every month or so, and the laws become essentially unenforceable, taxes become uncollectable, the government eventually collapses under the strain), and agorism, where the market supplants the government at everything it does which is in demand, including protection, and once it reaches a critical mass, the government will find it's laws to be unenforceable.

All of which involve making the laws unenforceable in one way or another. Escape, overflow, replacement. There's a lot of other ideas too, like buying out a third-world country and making a free market of it and moving there, or which I think is least likely to work, using the political process to eliminate the state.

 

Quote:
The rich know that the state is important to them, so they wouldn't support anarcho-capitalism.

It's more complicated than that. There are the rich who are rich only because of the government (such as Lockheed), the rich who are rich with government help but do not depend on it (Microsoft), and the rich who are rich in spite of the government's attempts to stop them (Walmart, in many cases, is held back or even shut out of many cities).

The first class would certainly be opposed to anarchocapitalism. But they can't do anything about it. There is too much risk involved and too little reward to be gained by lockheed if they proceeded to rob people. Because Lockheed isn't the government, people won't just accept Lockheed's theft. Nor will Lockheed be able to enforce laws of any kind over any kind of area. Lockheed is nothing without the government. 100% of it's income was paid at one time or another as taxation.

The second class would certainly be uneasy about a world where they couldn't have exclusive patents, for instance, but they would welcome the relief in tax burdens and regulations. Microsoft might start selling entire computer bundles with Windows, and there's nothing wrong with that. They'd likely be about as afraid as anyone else, because there are risks and rewards involved. But they wouldn't commit any resources to preserving a collapsing government.

The third class would be more embracing than the vast majority because they've got much to gain from it. Without governments imposing property tax burdens, laws directed specifically at them, and such absurd employment laws as we currently have, Walmart would have a lot to gain. And if they really do violate people's rights, there won't be a limited liability Walmart to protect it's stockholders or owners from paying for Walmart's debts.

The rich isn't a single homogenous class. 

Quote:
Unless there is a big change, I would expect the rich to lead a new de facto state soon after anarcho-capitalism was established...

  Such a de facto state would either be recognized by the vast majority as illegitemate, and thus violently opposed, or would be voluntarily consented to. In the first case, the rich will have a big problem on their hands. They own the means of production, to operate a government you require the means of destruction. They would find any laws unenforceable, any taxes unpaid, and any wars unprofitable. They lack the infrastructure to impose income taxes on anyone but their own employees, and unhappy employees will quit. In short, such a state would be on about the same level as no state at all. In the second case, there's nothing wrong with it.


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Typically

Zhwazi wrote:

Typically the damage done by a lawn tresspasser is far less than the cost of the mine, the mining, and the repair of the damage the mine would cause if it exploded. So people wouldn't be mining their yards.

Who can put a price on "freedom"? If I had lots of money and was sufficiently paranoid, I would see the cost of mining of my yard to be a bargain. You answered earlier criticisms by saying people would mine their yards, and now you say they wouldn't. I understand that alot of people are coming at you at once on this issue, but it does weaken your argument. Of course the one inarguable point is your base claim that "people can do what they want on property they own". So some would mine and some wouldn't. Landmines have negative effects that you don't seem to want to address.

Quote:
They still own their lives. At least until they violate my property rights.

This is the essence of your argument, which I point out problems with, then you back away from it, then you come back to it from a different direction. You are circling around and around. They own their lives until they violate my property rights. My property rights are anything I want them to be. Someone violating them can become my slave. But if someone trespasses briefly, I won't take their life. If they trespass a little longer I'll be nice and let them sleep on the lawn. No court would hold up me attacking a person for trespassing. Owning land is the same as owning your own body. So I can act defensively if someone steps on my property. And they own their lives until they violate my property rights....etc. etc. and on and on.

Once you introduce the legal possiblity of owning slaves, ambitious people will exploit the law or customs to the fullest extent possible.

Quote:
I think I said that, although I don't like using the word "laws" to describe things, I only use that to illustrate the concept. As I normally use the word "laws" it pertains to someone other than the rightful owner claiming decisionmaking power over someone else. To try to show that anarchy isn't a total absence of rules that must be followed, but just government, I say "laws" in the sense of rules to be followed.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Rich think differently. The thing is, you can change the way you think. You don't inherit a way of thinking from your genes. You can learn ways of thinking from anyone. If you want to go on thinking the way the less successful members of society think, you won't go anywhere.

You've softened your elitist approach a bit by removing "better". Anyway, I'll sign up for the Paris Hilton School of Better Thinking if it ever gets established.

Quote:
That didn't answer the question. What's the difference to me? Either way I am not allowed to choose how to use my own property. My life, liberty, and property are in both cases, in the hands of people whos dominion over me is absolute and irresponsible, and corporately exclusive.
I answered the original question fine. Its more just than a dictatorial setup. I realize you think you have unlimited rights to any property you fence in, I'm trying to show you that fencing in property infringes on the right of others to live.

Quote:

I'll tell you or put a sign out or something. It's stupid to expect people to obey rules they have no way of knowing. If you are not causing any damage and simply don't know what the rules of my property are, I can't say that you're disrespecting my ownership of property.

Unless it's in your best interests to not have the laws understood, and thus you can get free labor from violators or tax them in some way.

Quote:
It's one thing to not know you're violating the rules, but fully intend to follow whatever rules exist. And it makes sense to assume you are a person until you show yourself to be an animal...

It's another thing to know what the rules are, but completely disreguard them. It's another thing to actively destroy my property. These things will make you an animal.

Of course definitions of human (with rights) and animal (without rights, but still homo sapien) are completely up to the property (land) owner, and intentions are often misconstrued.

Quote:
I believe the correct word is "obligation", not "regulation". And to answer the question, you did. Because you still own yourself and for me to take ownership of you without you first giving up self-ownership.
I gave up self ownership when I attacked you by stepping on your property (land), which is the same (to you) as attacking you by stepping on your property (your face).

Quote:
Depends...The thing with anarchocapitalism is that I can only offer possibilities, I can't tell you exactly how it will be done. The market will decide that.

I agree with you. However my point was that your argument of cutting across a corner of the sidewalk and entering your property is not valid, as it assumes the sidewalk is fair game for the person to travel across.

Quote:

...concept of rightful exclusive absolute irresponsible control...

Please explain what you mean by this statement, I have trouble puzzling it out.

Quote:

But there would be no point in claiming exclusive ownership of anything because restitution would be self-providing.

Well, we could argue this back and forth but its a bit off topic, and regardless we both agree there are finite resources, we just disagree on how they should be distributed.

Quote:

I disagree. You have a negative right to life, meaning, nobody can kill you. You do not have a positive right to life, meaning, if you lack something you require to sustain your surviva, nobody is in any way obligated to provide it.

I don't divide my rights that way. I feel that I have a right to live, period. If I can't get food or water for whatever reason I will steal it, and I think I would be morally justified in doing so if it was from someone who had more than they needed for their own personal use. I doubt you will agree with me on this point. But in your society you would have to deal with many such people that think that way, and you would deal with them with murder and slavery.

Quote:

It's impossible to own all of the resources.

Why? Whats the maximum amount of resources you can own? We've already agreed that resources are finite.

kriz wrote:
Because they would be killing off mass numbers of people who need land, water, and air to survive.

Zhwazi wrote:

No they wouldn't. How?

Because resources are finite. If someone owns all of those resources, there are none left for others to use. If I can't afford air, I die. If I can't afford water, I die. Your random right to fence them in puts a tax on me from birth that I am trapped in.

Quote:
Three-dimensional. You could go up into airships, out into space, down underwater, down underground, the seabed, underneath the seabed, etc. 20 years ago there was still unowned land in Montana and such free to be homesteaded. In the time it would take us to cover the entire ocean, we'd be a spacefaring species.
This is great. So now someone born poor without anything to trade has to build a spaceship to survive in your society.

Quote:
All the resources cannot be owned by one person or one small group of people. It's impossible in the nature of things. You have time and energy you can sell or trade, and this is what most people do.

Unless of course you are enslaved. Or you are competing for a job against a slave. But even ignoring the problem that slaves create within your society, what if there's 5 people on the edge of your property wanting to mow your lawn? Are you going to let all 5 of them mow your entire lawn and pay them for it?

Quote:
Food and water are not heavily subsidized in the US.
This is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidies

Private food and water would be more expensive. Especially if you held exclusive rights to a source. Egypt is in anarchy and you own the Nile, you will be able to charge whatever you want for water.

Quote:
But that would be a total waste of money. There's no profit to be had, why would I waste my precious time and energy to do that? It's just stupid.
It will make tons of money. I own 2 cubic miles of air, and everytime you breathe it you have to pay me. In fact, since you really have no concern for the landless poor, we can use this against landowners. I claim to own all the air on top of your property, now you have to pay me tribute because you breathe it. Does it sound ridiculous? It is my intention to make it so, and show by comparison that if owning air is ridiculous, so is owning water. If owning water is ridiculous, so is owning land. You need all three to survive. Why should I care about your "positive right" to air?

Quote:

You've got a serious strawman in your head.

A rich/poor divide exists. Wanna know what stops the poor from becoming rich? The government. Regulations. Taxation. Incorporation. Favoritism. Sweethart deals. These things are all written to the advantage of the rich-at-present, because of who they are. Absent government, the poor would no longer have anything holding them back. There would be no more privileged class. The rich would have to compete with the poor on a fair playing field. Many of them can't do that. Their businesses would be eaten alive. The free market allows for theoretical failures like the one you're thinking of, but in practice this never manifests. We have a relatively tiny minority controlling all the wheat crop. And yet we all have bread or can get it with very little effort.

The only reason the rich/poor divide is what it is today is because of economic regulations. Without it, there would be nothing resembling one man owning almost everything, or one small group of men owning almost everything.

I don't know the exactly what "strawman" means, does it mean what I mentioned is not a real issue? I simply stated that those without resources will always be willing to attack people with resources to survive, this is the at the center of the argument in my opinion, and the reason anarchism and capitalism are at odds. I agree with you that our government helps out the rich and keeps poor competitors out. But rich companies working together without the threat of democratic intervention will institute draconian policies even harsher.

Quote:

I'd more likely trade with them. "I'll mow your lawn for a gallon of water and a loaf of bread?" "K" "Yay."

And so most people would be willing to trade as well. Except the situation eventually comes up where they don't need their lawn mowed, or there are too many people in your area looking for some work to do for only a cup of water, then:

Quote:
Kriz: And if you are caught you are reduced to a slave.....

Zhwazi: If you are caught stealing, yes.

Quote:

Anarchy as you describe it would reduce us to a world population of millions hunting wild animals for food.

The hunter/gatherer lifestyle was a good one, but there's no turning back now. We live in a different world.

Quote:
I rather like the industrialization that private ownership has allowed.

Off topic, but I would argue private ownership could not have industrialized without the help of government.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote: Who can put a

kriz wrote:
Who can put a price on "freedom"?

Whoever owns it.

Quote:
If I had lots of money and was sufficiently paranoid, I would see the cost of mining of my yard to be a bargain.

If you were sufficiently paranoid you'd have bigger priorities than mining your yard.

 

Quote:
You answered earlier criticisms by saying people would mine their yards, and now you say they wouldn't. I understand that alot of people are coming at you at once on this issue, but it does weaken your argument.

I thought I said they could, not that they would. I've never thought it probable that people would mine their yards, and there's a big difference between the strictly defensive manually-triggered mines and the proximity/pressure triggered mines. 

Quote:
Of course the one inarguable point is your base claim that "people can do what they want on property they own". So some would mine and some wouldn't. Landmines have negative effects that you don't seem to want to address.

Effects like? I've addressed that it would hurt other people and they could sue back.

Quote:
This is the essence of your argument, which I point out problems with, then you back away from it, then you come back to it from a different direction. You are circling around and around. They own their lives until they violate my property rights. My property rights are anything I want them to be. Someone violating them can become my slave. But if someone trespasses briefly, I won't take their life. If they trespass a little longer I'll be nice and let them sleep on the lawn. No court would hold up me attacking a person for trespassing. Owning land is the same as owning your own body. So I can act defensively if someone steps on my property. And they own their lives until they violate my property rights....etc. etc. and on and on.

Alright, there's violations, and there's respect of the idea of ownership.

If someone violates your rights, you can demand corrective action.

If they deny your rights, blow their head off for all I care, they're an animal.

Your property is not whatever you want it to be. It is whatever you either traded for or originally appropriated from nature. 

Quote:
Once you introduce the legal possiblity of owning slaves, ambitious people will exploit the law or customs to the fullest extent possible.

What law?

Quote:
You've softened your elitist approach a bit by removing "better". Anyway, I'll sign up for the Paris Hilton School of Better Thinking if it ever gets established.

Paris Hilton will be soon broke if anything incapacitates her "skills". Rags to riches to rags, you're familiar with it? The better thinkers don't go from rags to riches back to rags. Poor thinking is why people go from riches to rags.

Quote:
I answered the original question fine. Its more just than a dictatorial setup. I realize you think you have unlimited rights to any property you fence in, I'm trying to show you that fencing in property infringes on the right of others to live.

No you didn't. No rulers = no rulers. "Everybody is each others' rulers" does not count as no rulers. And no, fencing in property does not infringe on the right of others to live. If they think they can survive without taking positive action and adapting to their surroundings then they deserve to die, because such an idea is stupid. 

Quote:
Unless it's in your best interests to not have the laws understood, and thus you can get free labor from violators or tax them in some way.

Why would it be in my best interests to not have someone know not to slash my tires? Why would it be in my best interests not to have someone know that they can't walk into my store with a shouldered AK-47? I set the rules on my property because I want them to be *respected*, not because I want them to be violated. A violation of rights doesn't constitute instantaneous permanant slavery. If they cause no damage, there is nothing to resitute. If they refuse to respect my property right to my land, I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect your property right in yourself.

Quote:
Of course definitions of human (with rights) and animal (without rights, but still homo sapien) are completely up to the property (land) owner, and intentions are often misconstrued.

No they're not. They're up to whoever owns the thing in question. You own yourself, and only you can make yourself no longer a person. 

Quote:
I gave up self ownership when I attacked you by stepping on your property (land), which is the same (to you) as attacking you by stepping on your property (your face).

No it isn't. Stepping on land does no damage to be restituted. Stepping on my face certainly could. If you step on my sidewalk, you're not going to damage it, so I couldn't sue you for anything as long as you left when told. If you step on my sprinkler and break it, then you've cause damage that requires restitution, you owe me a new sprinkler. 

Quote:
I agree with you. However my point was that your argument of cutting across a corner of the sidewalk and entering your property is not valid, as it assumes the sidewalk is fair game for the person to travel across.

Let us just assume that. It doesn't have to be the sidewalk, that was just a convenient example that came to mind. 

Quote:
Please explain what you mean by this statement, I have trouble puzzling it out.

Rightful - Right, not wrong, as the rest can be had wrongfully.

Exclusive - Nobody other than the owner has right to it

Absolute - Doing whatever you want

Irresponsible - Difference between owning a car and borrowing it, if you borrow it you are still responsible to the owner

Control - Decisionmaking power over it.

Quote:
I don't divide my rights that way. I feel that I have a right to live, period.

Feel? I feel like you're silly, but that doesn't make it so. Can you rationally justify, or think that you have a right to live, period?

What right to life has a man drowning in the pacific with nobody around to help him? None whatsoever.

Quote:
If I can't get food or water for whatever reason I will steal it, and I think I would be morally justified in doing so if it was from someone who had more than they needed for their own personal use.

Who decides how much they need for themself? Them? Then they own it. You? What stops you from deciding they don't need any, thus making any theft perfectly morally justified?

Quote:
I doubt you will agree with me on this point.

I only disagree with the 'right' part. If you think you can take anyone's property who you think has more than they need, then you're an animal, you're not obligated to respect anyone's rights, nor are they required to respect yours, and you need no "right" to take their property, but you cannot simultaneously assume you have any right to anything.

 

Quote:
But in your society you would have to deal with many such people that think that way, and you would deal with them with murder and slavery.

It's not murder and slavery anymore than hunting or keeping farm animals. 

Quote:
Why? Whats the maximum amount of resources you can own? We've already agreed that resources are finite.

If ownership exists:

You can't sell yourself. You are a property, a resource, to yourself, you own yourself, and you can't sell yourself, so it's impossible for someone else to own you. Because it's impossible for someone else to own you, and you are a thing, it's impossible for one person to own every thing.

If ownership does not exist:

There's no way for anybody to own anything and therefore somebody could own nothing, and it's impossible then for one person to own everthing. You would then need no rightful ownership of anything to use it, if one person claimed ownership of anything, ownership doesn't exist so it's as if they sad they were a purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with a tuning fork, you have no reason to care.

As far as I know these are the only two possibilities. Ownership can't "kinda" exist, because of the absolute nature of ownership. 

kriz wrote:
Because resources are finite. If someone owns all of those resources, there are none left for others to use. If I can't afford air, I die. If I can't afford water, I die. Your random right to fence them in puts a tax on me from birth that I am trapped in.

You can't own all the resources. And even if one person owned everything that they could own, they're not going to get anything from it if they don't trade with you for it. They'd give you water or whatever if you do something for them. 

 

Quote:
This is great. So now someone born poor without anything to trade has to build a spaceship to survive in your society.

You always have your time and energy and talents. 

Quote:
All the resources cannot be owned by one person or one small group of people. It's impossible in the nature of things. You have time and energy you can sell or trade, and this is what most people do.

Quote:
Unless of course you are enslaved.

In which case you're under no obligation to do anything. If wrongfully enslaved, you have no obligation to respect the aggressor's rights. If rightfully enslaved, you're an animal and you have no obligation to respect the aggressor's rights. 

Quote:
Are you going to let all 5 of them mow your entire lawn and pay them for it?

I have other things that I need done. Human wants are unlimited. One would mow my lawn, one would do my dishes, one would vacuum, one would cook me a meal, one would paint my house, and after anything like that, I still have things I want. If they have any assembling skill I'd have them assemble a few parts kits into functional rifles (keeping the ammo away for obvious reasons), or I'd accept a blowjob. There's always something I want done, I always want something, and if people have time and energy to trade, I'll always have something to trade for, until I start valuing my food and water more than I value the labor they can do for me.

Quote:
This is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidies

Private food and water would be more expensive.

Subsidies don't make food less expensive. They only hide the costs underneath taxes. And as I've already said, taxation is not progressive, the poor pay disproportionately more than the rich. 

Quote:
Especially if you held exclusive rights to a source. Egypt is in anarchy and you own the Nile, you will be able to charge whatever you want for water.

How did I aquire the whole Nile? And what would stop people from building desal plants on the adjacent seas and piping water back to where I'm selling it at a lower cost?

There is competition for *everything*. The only monopolies which exist are monopolies created by force (usually government). 

Quote:
It will make tons of money. I own 2 cubic miles of air, and everytime you breathe it you have to pay me.

I'll breathe it anyways. If you want me to pay, you'll have to sue me for damages. And that requires proving that any damage occured at all, which you can't.  

Quote:
In fact, since you really have no concern for the landless poor, we can use this against landowners. I claim to own all the air on top of your property, now you have to pay me tribute because you breathe it. Does it sound ridiculous?

It is ridiculous as you presented it because you are presenting a strawman.

Quote:
It is my intention to make it so, and show by comparison that if owning air is ridiculous, so is owning water. If owning water is ridiculous, so is owning land. You need all three to survive. Why should I care about your "positive right" to air?

I have no positive right to air.

Quote:
I don't know the exactly what "strawman" means, does it mean what I mentioned is not a real issue?

"Strawman" is what it's called when you misrepresent something and then attempt to refute the misrepresentation. It's like if I thought you said that 2+2=5, it's easy for me to refute that, but it really doesn't refute what you're saying at all because you never really said 2+2=5.

Quote:
I simply stated that those without resources will always be willing to attack people with resources to survive, this is the at the center of the argument in my opinion, and the reason anarchism and capitalism are at odds.

People will not attack those that own what they want if they can trade for it.

People do not only seek gain, they seek to prevent loss. Violence greatly increases the chances of loss, as if the owner of the resource you desire also uses violence against you, he may kill you, and you don't want to die. Thus you will tend to prefer trading for the desired resource peacefully over violent appropriation. 

Quote:
But rich companies working together without the threat of democratic intervention will institute draconian policies even harsher.

They have no ability to do so. 

Quote:
And so most people would be willing to trade as well. Except the situation eventually comes up where they don't need their lawn mowed, or there are too many people in your area looking for some work to do for only a cup of water, then:

Then you offer me something else I want. You give me what I want, and I'll give you what you want. 

Quote:
Zhwazi: If you are caught stealing, yes.

If you want to no longer be a slave, all you have to do is restitute the victim. Give them back what you stole or give them something of greater value. Then you're no longer a slave.

Quote:
The hunter/gatherer lifestyle was a good one

You speak from experience?  

Quote:
Off topic, but I would argue private ownership could not have industrialized without the help of government.

You have a very hard case to prove then. 


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
In an effort to keep this

In an effort to keep this more on topic and enable both of us to respond to it in less time, I'm going to select out what I think are the important parts of the arguments, and leave discussions like industrialization, hunter/gatherer lifestyle, agricultural subsidies,  etc. behind.  If you feel I am avoiding some issue related to the topic at hand, call me out on it and I will address it.

 

Zhwazi wrote:

If you were sufficiently paranoid you'd have bigger priorities than mining your yard.

Unless your biggest priority was keeping people off of your land, and land mines would be a great deterrant once word got around.  Most people obseessed with property rights also seem obsessed with keeping people off of their property.  In capitalist anarchy, of course there would be all kinds of different land with different levels of defenses.

Quote:

I've addressed that it would hurt other people and they could sue back.

 

OK, fair enough.  But didn't those people step onto your property?  I mean, wouldn't the court just agree that the person would never have been blown up if he didnt step on your lawn?  He violated your rights first, so all his rights are forfeit.  You have specifically made a rule saying noone can step on your property, and you've submitted this in writing to all the important courts.  We don't even need to address the issue that he probably doesn't have enough money to sue, or may not even be alive to hire someone to sue.

Quote:
Alright, there's violations, and there's respect of the idea of ownership.

I agree.  Some people would respect property rights, however some people would violate property rights. 

Quote:
If someone violates your rights, you can demand corrective action.

Here there is something missing, I thought they could become your slave?  All you can do is demand corrective action? 

Quote:
If they deny your rights, blow their head off for all I care, they're an animal.

Ah OK, so all we've added so far is a quick exchange between the two.  So instead of becoming an animal when they step on your property, now once they step on your property, you demand whatever you think is corrective action, they refuse, and only then they become an animal.  I dont see this as that significant of a change, actually.  Example:

Landowner: "Get off my land"

Vagrant: "I'm gonna sit down for a minute"

Landowner: "I asked you nice, now you have to mow my lawn"

Vagrant: "Screw you."

Vagrant gets head blown off.  Alternatively, vagrant is enslaved.

Of course, if the landlord had a good amount of money, or simply was familiar with how local courts likely ruled, he could just enslave the vagrant or blow his head off, and just claim that the preceeding conversation took place.

Quote:
Your property is not whatever you want it to be. It is whatever you either traded for or originally appropriated from nature.

This is a change.  Am I interpretting it correctly?  I thought the whole point was that you had complete freedom to do whatever you want on your property.  This seems to imply that if I appropriated a mountain from nature, I couldn't mine it or build anything on it.  I must be interpretting this wrong, please clarify. 

Quote:
Kriz: Once you introduce the legal possiblity of owning slaves, ambitious people will exploit the law or customs to the fullest extent possible.

Zhwazi: What law?

 

Sorry, i tried to be as clear as possible.  I said "law or custom" to leave room for your objection to the term "law".  How about replacing it with "rule or custom" would you then have any objection to my statement?

Quote:
Paris Hilton will be soon broke if anything incapacitates her "skills". Rags to riches to rags, you're familiar with it? The better thinkers don't go from rags to riches back to rags. Poor thinking is why people go from riches to rags.

Luck has something to do with it, even if we may disagree on how much.  For example, Paris Hilton was born into a billion dollar fortune, and does not fit into the "rags to riches" model.  I'll have to look into it, but I dont think Paris Hiltons fortune is getting any smaller, despite her "poor thinking". 

Quote:

No you didn't. No rulers = no rulers. "Everybody is each others' rulers" does not count as no rulers.

 Aren't land owners a type of ruler in your society?  They even have geographical monopoly.

Quote:
And no, fencing in property does not infringe on the right of others to live. If they think they can survive without taking positive action and adapting to their surroundings then they deserve to die, because such an idea is stupid.

There is a difference between adapting to your surroundings and being born into a tax system of private tyrannies. 

Quote:
Why would it be in my best interests to not have someone know not to slash my tires? Why would it be in my best interests not to have someone know that they can't walk into my store with a shouldered AK-47? I set the rules on my property because I want them to be *respected*, not because I want them to be violated.

Right, most people make rules because they want them respected.  Others dont (governments, large companys) because they want to imprison or tax people.  I am saying powerful individuals would exploit this system to enslave and tax people.  I need slaves for my factory, so I let people wander on to my property.  Alternatively, if I was less evil, I would just charge them a tax.

 

Quote:
A violation of rights doesn't constitute instantaneous permanant slavery. If they cause no damage, there is nothing to resitute. If they refuse to respect my property right to my land, I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect your property right in yourself.

This statement comes close to refuting itself.  The beginning says "a violation of rights doesn't constitute instantaneous permanent slavery" then "If they refuse to respect my property I am under no obligation...to respect your property right in yourself".  Can you see how these 2 sentances contradict each other?  Regardless, I will address the middle sentence about damages with the quote below on the same topic.

Quote:

No they're not. They're up to whoever owns the thing in question. You own yourself, and only you can make yourself no longer a person.

 

The issue here is intents can be misconstrued.  I could be sleeping on your lawn, oblivious or too tired to care about your rules, but you seeing me there don't empathize with that.  To you, I am being lazy and know perfectly well I'm not supposed to be there.  This situation might happen to you several times a week after all.  Its like panhandlers, some may be actually hungry and looking for food, but you see enough of them and you start assuming that they are all there by choice or just trying to get some drugs.  And you said completely disregarding your property rules will make you an animal (alt. slave/corpse).  The land owner that is sufficiently jaded or callous will almost always see the situation as completely disregarding his rules, no matter the situation.  Intentions can be misconstrued, so I feel they are not a basis for determining whether someone becomes a slave or not.

Quote:

No it isn't. Stepping on land does no damage to be restituted. Stepping on my face certainly could. If you step on my sidewalk, you're not going to damage it, so I couldn't sue you for anything as long as you left when told. If you step on my sprinkler and break it, then you've cause damage that requires restitution, you owe me a new sprinkler.

Damages.  First of all you claimed that property of yourself  was the same as property of land, and attacks on property eliminate your rights.  Damages never entered into the equation earlier, but I'd be happy to address them. 

Sidewalks get wear and tear, first of all.  Second, what if people are just walking through your property all the time?  They're not killing the grass, they're not damaging anything, so you cant do anything about it?   What if your property is between 2 desirable locations, so there is heavy traffic through your property constantly.  Sure, they cut a trail and theres minor damage, but the route is important enough to them, so they just throw a few dollars at you whenever they pass by.  But you dont want them there AT ALL, you dont want a major road running by your house.  Are you now powerless to stop them because they're throwing money at you?  What comes into play here is the price of peace and quiet, the price of being left alone. And that is what I mean when I say the property owner will set the price, the price goes beyond physical damage and the emotional price will be set by the land owner.  Thus, if the landowner could price the traffic of the road off of his property for peace and quiet, he can put the price of a trespasser beyond that he will be able to pay.  And then the trespasser can be shot or enslaved. 

Quote:
Feel? I feel like you're silly, but that doesn't make it so. Can you rationally justify, or think that you have a right to live, period?

I don't believe in an afterlife.  Therefore my life is the only thing I've got, and I'm not going to let you take it just because you built a fence before I was born. 

Quote:
What right to life has a man drowning in the pacific with nobody around to help him? None whatsoever.

What, he was in the pacific because noone would let him on their land and he was broke?  Ah well, he should have learned to sea-stead.  Didn't have money to build some sort of functioning floating , fresh water producing island?  I guess your right, he does deserve to die.  He should have given somebody a blowjob, and he wouldn't be drowning that way right now.   

Quote:

Who decides how much they need for themself? Them? Then they own it. You? What stops you from deciding they don't need any, thus making any theft perfectly morally justified?

Nothing. You've already decided I dont need any, and took it all for yourself by building a fence, thus making your theft morally justified. 

Quote:

It's not murder and slavery anymore than hunting or keeping farm animals.

Agreed.  And the animals are homo sapiens. 

Quote:

If ownership exists:

You can't sell yourself. You are a property, a resource, to yourself, you own yourself, and you can't sell yourself, so it's impossible for someone else to own you. Because it's impossible for someone else to own you, and you are a thing, it's impossible for one person to own every thing.

If ownership does not exist:

There's no way for anybody to own anything and therefore somebody could own nothing, and it's impossible then for one person to own everthing. You would then need no rightful ownership of anything to use it, if one person claimed ownership of anything, ownership doesn't exist so it's as if they sad they were a purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with a tuning fork, you have no reason to care.

I'm pretty sure I agree with what you're saying here.  You're taking about unlimited resources like what people can do or think, right?  Let me rephrase my question:

"Why? Whats the maximum amount of material resources you can own? We've already agreed that material resources are finite."

Quote:
They'd give you water or whatever if you do something for them.

Maybe they will and maybe they wont, its their water.  They might like me to work in their factory for the rest of my life. 

 

Quote:
You always have your time and energy and talents.

You'll never have enough talent, energy, or time to build a spaceship.  You are going to need resources, massive resources.  Resources you won't be able to trade blow jobs for.  Im not going to argue about spaceships anymore. 

Quote:

In which case you're under no obligation to do anything. If wrongfully enslaved, you have no obligation to respect the aggressor's rights. If rightfully enslaved, you're an animal and you have no obligation to respect the aggressor's rights.

Every slave is going to believe that they are wrongfully enslaved. 

Quote:
until I start valuing my food and water more than I value the labor they can do for me.

Thats my point.

Quote:

How did I aquire the whole Nile?

You built a fence around it.

Quote:
And what would stop people from building desal plants on the adjacent seas and piping water back to where I'm selling it at a lower cost?

Why, you simply wouldn't supply water to the people laboring to construct such a plant. 

Quote:
There is competition for *everything*. The only monopolies which exist are monopolies created by force (usually government).

Everything is created by force in your society.  "I'm building a fence here, get the hell out." 

Quote:

I'll breathe it anyways. If you want me to pay, you'll have to sue me for damages. And that requires proving that any damage occured at all, which you can't.

I can't prove it huh?  I just take video of you breathing.  You're adding carbon dioxide to my fresh air.  Besides, see the damages post above.  To take it from another angle: Prove I'm damaging your lawn by sitting on it.  The grass is still there.  I can sit on your lawn whenever I want, and for you to stop me you will have to sue and win, and a successful suit depends on you proving damages.  

Quote:

It is ridiculous as you presented it because you are presenting a strawman.

I misrepresent nothing.  I'm simply handing your strawman back to you so you can recognize it.

Quote:

"Strawman" is what it's called when you misrepresent something and then attempt to refute the misrepresentation. It's like if I thought you said that 2+2=5, it's easy for me to refute that, but it really doesn't refute what you're saying at all because you never really said 2+2=5.

Understood.  I think you are throwing around strawmen too often if thats the case. 

Quote:

People will not attack those that own what they want if they can trade for it.

I'm not arguing this.  People dying of starvation or thirst with nothing to trade (of value) will attack though.  That is an extreme example, but people will also be willing to attack if they can get away with it and they are only slightly in danger of dying.  Of course they will balance losses and gains.  People do it everyday when they rob houses or gas stations, and your society will be no different.

Quote:
They have no ability to do so.

They have every ability to do so.  They have time, talent, energy, and enormous resources.

Quote:

If you want to no longer be a slave, all you have to do is restitute the victim. Give them back what you stole or give them something of greater value. Then you're no longer a slave.

Easier said than done...see "damages" above.  Also, say it takes them a couple of days to build you a sprinkler.  You have to feed, house, and water them in that time.  Of course, they have to work that off as well.  It can very easily and probably fall into permanent debt slavery.

 


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
From your avatar: "No God

From your avatar: "No God in heaven nor any man on earth has the right to tell you what to be, do, think, own, say, or feel.  Nobody except you."

 

It's amazing how well I agree with this statement despite our arguement here.  Only the word "own" invalidates it for me.  Let me quote Upton Sinclair, from his book "The Jungle" :

Quote:
There was only one earth, and the quantity of material things was limited.  Of intellectual and moral things, on the other hand, there was no limit, one could have more without another's having less; hence, 'Communism in material production, anarchism in intellectual', was the formula of modern proletarian thought.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote:

kriz wrote:

In an effort to keep this more on topic and enable both of us to respond to it in less time, I'm going to select out what I think are the important parts of the arguments, and leave discussions like industrialization, hunter/gatherer lifestyle, agricultural subsidies, etc. behind. If you feel I am avoiding some issue related to the topic at hand, call me out on it and I will address it.

It seems I've taken a while to respond anyways. Sorry about that, some things came up which took my attention away from this forum for a few days.

Lemme also make things as short as possible.

If you want people to stay off your land, start with a "No Tresspassing" sign. It's $5 a dozen and it won't damage your property or even risk you having to go to court for blowing someone up. People respond to prices extremely well. If it's $5 per landmine and $5 for a dozen signs, people will use signs.

Maybe I should have said "violation vs disrespect" about property rights. Just because you violate does not mean you disrespect, you can be ignorant of your violation but fully intend respect, and if you are respectful, then there'll be no need for violence.

Quote:
Landowner: "Get off my land"

Vagrant: "I'm gonna sit down for a minute"

Landowner: "I asked you nice, now you have to mow my lawn"

Vagrant: "Screw you."

Vagrant gets head blown off. Alternatively, vagrant is enslaved.

Of course, if the landlord had a good amount of money, or simply was familiar with how local courts likely ruled, he could just enslave the vagrant or blow his head off, and just claim that the preceeding conversation took place.

First of all, our intruder should have tried saying "Can I please rest here for a moment?" not "I'm GOING to sit down." When he does this, he's totally disreguarding any right of the landowner to control his property. So when the landowner says "You're GOING to mow my lawn", he is totally disreguarding any right the intruder has to his life, liberty, and property, which is perfectly fair for the simple reason that the intruder just did that moments earlier, and it's merely abiding by the same moral principles that makes the intruder think he has any right to be on the land.

A court would likely not take such testimony as just a single witness when no obvious damage was being done. If he brought in a videotape wherein he did these things, then he'd be not guilty.

Although in practice, chances are if someone came out with a shotgun and said "get off my land", you're not going to say "screw you". Ignoring the morality of the response, if you're that stupid, you deserve to die.

Quote:
This is a change. Am I interpretting it correctly? I thought the whole point was that you had complete freedom to do whatever you want on your property. This seems to imply that if I appropriated a mountain from nature, I couldn't mine it or build anything on it. I must be interpretting this wrong, please clarify.

I have no idea how you got that conclusion.

 

Quote:
Sorry, i tried to be as clear as possible. I said "law or custom" to leave room for your objection to the term "law". How about replacing it with "rule or custom" would you then have any objection to my statement?

Because you can drop your "slave" status by simply obeying the owner's property rights, there's little room for abuse. You have to be deliberately negligent (seems like a contradiction in terms, which just illustrates how far you'd have to go) to get yourself enslaved. Slavery could only be as permanant as you allowed it to be.

Quote:
Aren't land owners a type of ruler in your society? They even have geographical monopoly.

Not over property which they do not own. That's what distinguishes them from a government, their power over a patch of land is justly aquired.

Quote:
This statement comes close to refuting itself. The beginning says "a violation of rights doesn't constitute instantaneous permanent slavery" then "If they refuse to respect my property I am under no obligation...to respect your property right in yourself". Can you see how these 2 sentances contradict each other?

They don't, because you can at any time choose to respect my property. A violation is an event, it comes, it goes, life goes on. Failure to respect is an ongoing thing. And you can change it at any time. Only if a violation or intsance of disrespect was permanant for the rest of someone's life would there be any contradiction.

Quote:
The issue here is intents can be misconstrued. I could be sleeping on your lawn, oblivious or too tired to care about your rules, but you seeing me there don't empathize with that. To you, I am being lazy and know perfectly well I'm not supposed to be there.

If you're inert, then I can just drag you away off my land.

If you're awake, then your responses to my demands are how I'll determine whether you have rights or not.

 

Quote:
Intentions can be misconstrued, so I feel they are not a basis for determining whether someone becomes a slave or not.

The burden of proof is on the victim to prove that something happened. Then the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that it was justified. It will be very easy to prove that something happened. In cases where it cannot easily be proven that it was justified, people will be reluctant to act.

Quote:
Thus, if the landowner could price the traffic of the road off of his property for peace and quiet, he can put the price of a trespasser beyond that he will be able to pay. And then the trespasser can be shot or enslaved.

Correct. Which is why it's likely people will have insurance for stuff like this. If you don't want insurance, you bear all the risks yourself.

Quote:
I don't believe in an afterlife. Therefore my life is the only thing I've got, and I'm not going to let you take it just because you built a fence before I was born.

And I'm not going to let you ignore my claim to a place I own just because you were born after I built a fence.

 

Quote:
Nothing. You've already decided I dont need any, and took it all for yourself by building a fence, thus making your theft morally justified.

It was not theft because you did not own it in the first place. Not collectively, not individually, not publicly, not at all. The world did not originally belong to humanity collectively with each having some claim to everything.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure I agree with what you're saying here. You're taking about unlimited resources like what people can do or think, right? Let me rephrase my question:

"Why? Whats the maximum amount of material resources you can own? We've already agreed that material resources are finite."

In theory, almost all.

In practice, an insignifcant proportion.

Quote:
You'll never have enough talent, energy, or time to build a spaceship. You are going to need resources, massive resources. Resources you won't be able to trade blow jobs for. Im not going to argue about spaceships anymore.

Then let me just say, it's all about what tools you have. Better tools = things previously thought unimaginable are now possible with very little actual human effort involved.

Quote:
Every slave is going to believe that they are wrongfully enslaved.

If they are wrongfully enslaved, they are unable to retake the status of a person. If they are rightfully enslaved, then they are able to. Every slave who recognizes that he is a slave rightfully will take corrective action and no longer be a slave.

Quote:
Thats my point.

And in that case, why do you have more claim to my water than I do? By not selling it, I'm telling you that I believe that I need the water I own, and I have none to spare.

Quote:
You built a fence around it.

It's already owned.

If the earth were of infinite size, then going into a region like that and claiming the nile would be worthless because nobody is around there, and once they realized how hard it would be to get water, they'd stay away, the area would never civilize. It is already owned, as is all land in that region. It is already controlled and managed.

Either there would not already be civilization around the river I claimed, or it would already be owned.

Quote:
Why, you simply wouldn't supply water to the people laboring to construct such a plant.

You don't seem to get how people solve problems. If they wanna build a desal plant, they'll start small, build a small building I wouldn't recognize and make water, and with that, they could have water for a bigger desal plant with which to supply others. If I'm overcharging for my water, that very small plant will still be making massive profits and will be able to rapidly expand it's operations. It's called the infinite bootstrap principle. You build tools which build tools which build tools and eventually you're surrounded by tools and life is good because you've got tools to do all the hard work for you.

Quote:
Everything is created by force in your society. "I'm building a fence here, get the hell out."

First, no it's not, second, even if that was true, it doesn't rebut the point.

Quote:
I can't prove it huh? I just take video of you breathing. You're adding carbon dioxide to my fresh air. Besides, see the damages post above. To take it from another angle: Prove I'm damaging your lawn by sitting on it. The grass is still there. I can sit on your lawn whenever I want, and for you to stop me you will have to sue and win, and a successful suit depends on you proving damages.

Alright, lemme put it like this.

If you fenced in the air, you'd be containing it for exclusive use.

If you contained the air, why the hell didn't you seal it off from the outside world? How is it that I can access "your" air without bypassing your barriers or agreeing to pay?

If you want to own the air, put it in a chamber. Otherwise your ownership of it will be more difficulty than simply abandoning it.

Quote:
They have every ability to do so. They have time, talent, energy, and enormous resources.

The resources they control are not the resources needed to do so. They control factories, mines, forests. These things are not going to allow them to enforce draconian rules. They control the means of production, not the means of destruction. If they sold their resources, they are giving up future profits from their factories, mines, and forests, in order to do something which there is little profit in. They care about profit, and there is more profit to be had by producing than there is to be had by selectively destroying.

Quote:
Easier said than done...see "damages" above. Also, say it takes them a couple of days to build you a sprinkler. You have to feed, house, and water them in that time. Of course, they have to work that off as well. It can very easily and probably fall into permanent debt slavery.

Not necessarily. It's fully possible that they can simply pay you the money to buy you a sprinkler. They can find their own residence and food and water, they only owe you a sprinkler. If you want to afford them room and board for the time they're doing something for you, then you'd be doing it free. They're responsible for their room and board, but they need to be allowed to choose whether they'll accept you price or go try to find it cheaper elsewhere.


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: If you want

Zhwazi wrote:

If you want people to stay off your land, start with a "No Tresspassing" sign. It's $5 a dozen and it won't damage your property or even risk you having to go to court for blowing someone up. People respond to prices extremely well. If it's $5 per landmine and $5 for a dozen signs, people will use signs.

Thats all fine and good, the problem comes that you are circling the thread around on itself.  You now say landmines would not be that widespread, noone would use them, etc. etc.  Earlier you countered very valid points by another poster by saying land would be adequetly defended, including landmines. 

Quote:
Maybe I should have said "violation vs disrespect" about property rights. Just because you violate does not mean you disrespect, you can be ignorant of your violation but fully intend respect, and if you are respectful, then there'll be no need for violence.

More gray areas that power grabbing organizations will exploit.  You seem to forget that even in our real life, highly centrally beauracracy, USA government, people don't agree on definitions.  In your anarchy with hundreds or thousands of courts, everything will be grayer and more exploitable by the powerful. 

Quote:
Although in practice, chances are if someone came out with a shotgun and said "get off my land", you're not going to say "screw you". Ignoring the morality of the response, if you're that stupid, you deserve to die.

I think this argument is close to over as you have little regard for human life.  You want a world where noone has any rights except yourself, and are unable to see situations from other's points of view. 

Quote:
Kriz:This is the essence of your argument, which I point out problems with, then you back away from it, then you come back to it from a different direction. You are circling around and around. They own their lives until they violate my property rights. My property rights are anything I want them to be. Someone violating them can become my slave. But if someone trespasses briefly, I won't take their life. If they trespass a little longer I'll be nice and let them sleep on the lawn. No court would hold up me attacking a person for trespassing. Owning land is the same as owning your own body. So I can act defensively if someone steps on my property. And they own their lives until they violate my property rights....etc. etc. and on and on.

Zhwazi: Your property is not whatever you want it to be. It is whatever you either traded for or originally appropriated from nature.

Kriz:This is a change. Am I interpretting it correctly? I thought the whole point was that you had complete freedom to do whatever you want on your property. This seems to imply that if I appropriated a mountain from nature, I couldn't mine it or build anything on it. I must be interpretting this wrong, please clarify.

Zhwazi: I have no idea how you got that conclusion.

It seems clear to me how I arrived at this conclusion, it was a result of you trying to change what you said earlier to get out of the argument, and trying to pull me into circular reasoning.  I was giving you a chance to explain yourself.  Either you did not read carefully what I had wrote, or you put on blinders because you don't want to give up on your very strong faith in capitalist anarchy.

 

Quote:
Because you can drop your "slave" status by simply obeying the owner's property rights, there's little room for abuse. You have to be deliberately negligent (seems like a contradiction in terms, which just illustrates how far you'd have to go) to get yourself enslaved. Slavery could only be as permanant as you allowed it to be.
Nothing you have said comes remotely close to verifying this.  Slavery will be exploited.  

Quote:
Not over property which they do not own. That's what distinguishes them from a government, their power over a patch of land is justly aquired.

The government builds fences all the time, I still havnt seen a rational reason on how your acquiring land is "justified". 

Quote:

They don't, because you can at any time choose to respect my property. A violation is an event, it comes, it goes, life goes on. Failure to respect is an ongoing thing. And you can change it at any time. Only if a violation or intsance of disrespect was permanant for the rest of someone's life would there be any contradiction.

More gray areas of language that would be pointless to argue in a real life situation. 

Quote:

The burden of proof is on the victim to prove that something happened. Then the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that it was justified. It will be very easy to prove that something happened. In cases where it cannot easily be proven that it was justified, people will be reluctant to act.

Theres no reason to this.  This might be the way you want private courts to operate in your society, but nothing prevents them from putting the burdon of proof on someone else.  Not to mention that who the victim is, is part of the argument. 

Quote:

Correct. Which is why it's likely people will have insurance for stuff like this. If you don't want insurance, you bear all the risks yourself.

More money people have to pay to avoid becoming enslaved or shot, a private tax put on them.  And it's going to be pretty damn high, as I wouldnt give an insurance against trespassing plan to a homeless person  wandering through 100% private lands.

Quote:
It was not theft because you did not own it in the first place. Not collectively, not individually, not publicly, not at all. The world did not originally belong to humanity collectively with each having some claim to everything.

Just forget it.  We'll wait for the anarchy to come and I'll just build a fence around your fence, annexing your land.  Your fence building right to own policy is arbitrary. 

Quote:

In practice, an insignifcant proportion.

Well, we really have no idea how things will go in practice, do we? 


Quote:

If they are wrongfully enslaved, they are unable to retake the status of a person. If they are rightfully enslaved, then they are able to. Every slave who recognizes that he is a slave rightfully will take corrective action and no longer be a slave.

Says you, but my contract says different.  You seem to be oblivious to the fact that slaves are very valuable free labor, and some property owners and manufacture will do everything in their power to hold on to them. 

Quote:
And in that case, why do you have more claim to my water than I do? By not selling it, I'm telling you that I believe that I need the water I own, and I have none to spare.

It doesn't matter what you tell me or what you believe in this situation.  humans need water to function and they deserve to get it, and not be denied because you bottled it all up or fenced up the creek. 

Quote:

If the earth were of infinite size, then going into a region like that and claiming the nile would be worthless because nobody is around there, and once they realized how hard it would be to get water, they'd stay away, the area would never civilize. It is already owned, as is all land in that region. It is already controlled and managed.

Most governments own waterways and let everyone use them.  So in anarchy someone would come and claim it, why is it already owned?  Why is it impossible for one person to claim a whole river?  And of course you would sell the water, at your own price, and force people into slavery by doing it.  Your "dont like, then leave" argument doesn't work:  Id like to see you walk out of Egypt without a glass of water...and see how long you last before you pay any price, including entering slavery, to retain it. 

Quote:

You don't seem to get how people solve problems. If they wanna build a desal plant, they'll start small, build a small building I wouldn't recognize and make water, and with that, they could have water for a bigger desal plant with which to supply others. If I'm overcharging for my water, that very small plant will still be making massive profits and will be able to rapidly expand it's operations. It's called the infinite bootstrap principle. You build tools which build tools which build tools and eventually you're surrounded by tools and life is good because you've got tools to do all the hard work for you.

Pure fantasy...you seem to asusme everyone has infintite resources to do anything, then when I show you they won't get them, you rely on magical tools. 

Quote:

Alright, lemme put it like this.

If you fenced in the air, you'd be containing it for exclusive use.

If you contained the air, why the hell didn't you seal it off from the outside world? How is it that I can access "your" air without bypassing your barriers or agreeing to pay?

How is it I access your land, or drink from the stream on your property?  So I'm allowed to do what I want on your land as long as there is no physical barrier. 

Quote:
If you want to own the air, put it in a chamber. Otherwise your ownership of it will be more difficulty than simply abandoning it.

Not if you want to use your superior personal defense unit to impose a tax. 

I feel like I'm going in circles here.  I'll be back later to answer more, but frankly I feel as if I'm being led around and am getting tired of the discussion.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
kriz wrote:

kriz wrote:
Thats all fine and good, the problem comes that you are circling the thread around on itself. You now say landmines would not be that widespread, noone would use them, etc. etc. Earlier you countered very valid points by another poster by saying land would be adequetly defended, including landmines.

I went back and looked at that again. No, he didn't have "very valid points". His points were "nothing stops a protection agency from becoming a private army" which is as stupid as saying "why don't the NYPD invade Canada" and I was tired of arguing that because he didn't get it and wasn't going to no matter how many times I said it, and "So you think you're so tough" which is actually *not* a valid point at all.

So no, I'm not contradicing myself or leading you in circles or looping the thread around on itself. I'm giving stupid answers to stupid people with stupid objections.

And in any case, I totally fail to see how your idea of anarchy would stop this.

Quote:
More gray areas that power grabbing organizations will exploit.

They can't exploit them. There are no gray areas. It is binary. You either violated rights, or you didn't. You either intended to respect other people's ownership of property, or you didn't. These are not points on a continuum, these are crossing axes.

You can not violate rights and respect ownership.

You can violate rights but respect ownership.

You can not violate rights and not respect ownership.

You can vioate rights and not respect ownership.

No gray area exists.

Quote:
You seem to forget that even in our real life, highly centrally beauracracy, USA government, people don't agree on definitions. In your anarchy with hundreds or thousands of courts, everything will be grayer and more exploitable by the powerful.

Market incentives toward standardization would drive standardization.

Quote:
I think this argument is close to over as you have little regard for human life.

I have no reguard for any life just because it is a human. I respect lifeforms for other reasons based on other conditions than species.

Quote:
You want a world where noone has any rights except yourself, and are unable to see situations from other's points of view.

That's not true, and from what I can tell, you want a world where noone has any rights period.

Quote:
It seems clear to me how I arrived at this conclusion,

Well it isn't clear to me

Quote:
Nothing you have said comes remotely close to verifying this. Slavery will be exploited.

Regurgitation != Rebuttal.

Quote:
The government builds fences all the time, I still havnt seen a rational reason on how your acquiring land is "justified".

Original appropriation. If someone else has already appropriated it, then appropriating it is theft. If nobody else owns it, then you can have a justly owned patch of land. It is theft for a government to claim ownership of land already owned by someone else.

Quote:
More gray areas of language that would be pointless to argue in a real life situation.

What exactly is this gray area?

Quote:
Theres no reason to this. This might be the way you want private courts to operate in your society, but nothing prevents them from putting the burdon of proof on someone else. Not to mention that who the victim is, is part of the argument.

I want the courts to act a rationally, so I'll take my disputes to rational courts. Courts which are irrational will not be giving decisions that anybody will pay any attention to. A court will be taking responsibility for the actions of enforcement when it authorizes something. If it is doing it wrong, other courts will be trying the irrational courts for their bad decisions, and they'll owe restitution. They can't afford this, so they'll have to make good decisions.

Quote:
More money people have to pay to avoid becoming enslaved or shot, a private tax put on them.

Taxes are involuntary. Insurance is voluntary.

Quote:
And it's going to be pretty damn high, as I wouldnt give an insurance against trespassing plan to a homeless person wandering through 100% private lands.

Fortunately, you are not in charge of an insurance company.

Quote:
Just forget it. We'll wait for the anarchy to come and I'll just build a fence around your fence, annexing your land. Your fence building right to own policy is arbitrary.

The policy is "original appropriation", where something goes from unowned property to owned property. In the case of land, where forms of original appropriation that apply to portable goods only do not work, fencing or staking out the territory is the obvious way of doing it. If you can suggest a better method of original appropriation of nonportable resources, please do offer them. You cannot build a fence around my fence and annex my land because that would be theft.

Quote:
Well, we really have no idea how things will go in practice, do we?

Not true. Just because we don't know exactly how an experimental engine will perform before we build it doesn't mean we can't predict based on it's design, the laws of nature, and our knowledge of engines, what it will do. We have causes and effects which influence the outcomes, so we can predict the outcomes.

Because nobody would give all their property willingly to some megacorporation without getting something in return (and if they are not getting property in return, it is unlikely that they will choose to), the probability of voluntary interaction bringing about a one-man-owns-all situation is so tiny as to be negligible. If it is done involuntarily, then they don't have rightful ownership of anything, and it's perfectly fine for people to "steal" from them.

Quote:
Says you, but my contract says different.

Show me your contract.

Quote:
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that slaves are very valuable free labor, and some property owners and manufacture will do everything in their power to hold on to them.

What stops this in your anarchy and what do I have to say to get it into your head that rightful slavery is not perpetual?

Quote:
It doesn't matter what you tell me or what you believe in this situation. humans need water to function and they deserve to get it, and not be denied because you bottled it all up or fenced up the creek.

And you are depriving me of water, which I need to function.

Do rights exist, or don't they?

If they do, then I have the right to my water, and if you take it from my possession, it is theft, correct?

If they don't, then you don't need any right to steal my water, and I don't need any right to blow your head off.

If it's based on "need" then how do your needs ever trump mine? How do we determine who needs it more?

You seem to be asserting that simultaneously, rights exist (you have a right to life), and rights do not exist (your right to life trumps my right to life).

Please resolve this apparent contradiction, as I'm not totally sure what you believe and if I don't know what you believe, I can't very well argue against it.

Quote:
Most governments own waterways and let everyone use them.

So government is good? Or ownership is fine as long as everyone is allowed to use things? Do either of these contradict your anarchist or anti-property beliefs?

Quote:
So in anarchy someone would come and claim it, why is it already owned? Why is it impossible for one person to claim a whole river? And of course you would sell the water, at your own price, and force people into slavery by doing it. Your "dont like, then leave" argument doesn't work: Id like to see you walk out of Egypt without a glass of water...and see how long you last before you pay any price, including entering slavery, to retain it.

I don't value my water so highly that I would limit my market oer it. If I sell at too high a price, profits are low because consumption is reduced. If I sell at too high a price, it will be profitable to bring freshwater in on barges and sell it, bringing in competition. If I sell at too high a price, people take any opportunity to get out of the region. I could not sustain an absurdly high price. If you believe I can then you are underestimating the ability of the market to solve problems such as absurdly expensive water.

Quote:
Pure fantasy...you seem to asusme everyone has infintite resources to do anything, then when I show you they won't get them, you rely on magical tools.

It takes finite resources to build a small desal station. These resources can be loaned. The return on the investment will yield a profit, and the bankers will have an interest in loaning the necessary funds to buy the necessary tools because they will be making a profit off of it. Yes, they can get the tools.

Quote:
How is it I access your land, or drink from the stream on your property? So I'm allowed to do what I want on your land as long as there is no physical barrier.

Wasn't there a fence?

Quote:
Not if you want to use your superior personal defense unit to impose a tax.

Defense? Impose? Tax? Whuh? Are you paying attention to what you're saying?

Quote:
I feel like I'm going in circles here. I'll be back later to answer more, but frankly I feel as if I'm being led around and am getting tired of the discussion.

I think we could just boil it down then. We can ignore the questions of how it would work, unless you'd like to provide your own solutions to all of these problems.

What it comes down to is, does rightful control exist?

If it does, then property exists.

If *rightful* control does not exist, morality does not exist, rights do not exist.

If rightful *control* does not exist, then you cannot exist legitemately.

In the first case, I am right.

In the second case, nothing is wrong.

In the third case, everything is wrong.

If you believe that some things are wrong, but not everything is wrong, then I am right or you are contradicting yourself.

If property exists, and you want to be totally consistent, then free-market anarchism is the only moral option.