[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.[/quote]
Well, I’ll tell you this much, I’m calling dibs on the land mass that makes up the continental US, and about 20 miles out to sea, if Anracho-Capitalism ever becomes reality. Of course I’ll sell the vast majority of it off (or rent it out).
09/29/2010, Sloth made his claim.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
And? What makes you think homesteading or purchase on the open market gives you a legitimate claim to land?[/quote]
Well, quite frankly, nothing. You are right, there is nothing “legitimate” about property, at least not objectively. Property is a matter of inter-subjective consensus. IE you only own the shirt on your back because those in your society agree (at least externally) that you have the right to.
However, you were making a false analogy about private property, and I corrected you.
Great, you’re a Marxist. Have fun with that.
Ok, agreed. That’s one point for anarchy.
Like you said, the illegitimacy of original property ownership is a concern. At that point, however, there is not much that can be done about it.
Ok, so do you want to redraw all property in the world then? Is that your grand plan?
The difference, once again slow one, is that the state makes HUGE over-claims on its land and ONLY uses coercion to obtain property.
[quote]Except it hasn’t been refuted at all. The love it or leave it argument is brought out time and time again by libertarians when corporations act like assholes. Give me a nickel for every time I’ve heard the following conversation:
Bob the liberal: “My company wants to to make everybody work 7 days a week 10 hours a day for no more pay”
Chris the libertarian: “Well the company is allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t violate contractual agreements.”
Bob: “Well that sucks. Do you really think we should allow this unethical behavior?”
Chris: “You could always leave the company”
Bob: “It is the only company in town that is hiring. If I quit I am out of work and won’t be able to pay my bills and look after my family”
…
Chris: “Well then you should move towns”[/quote]
What a really stupid and unrealistic conversation. No true libertarian would say anything like that. Furthermore, that situation is extremely unrealistic because businesses generally can’t do things like that (except in some heavily regulated markets). And, finally, who beyond those engaged in a market transaction have the right to judge whether that behavior is ethical?
I haven’t here. But, it’s honestly been done a fucking million times. You’re new at this, so I’ll cut you some slack, but do some damn research next time.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t help it, here. A common objection of the anarchist is that it his misfortune to be born within the borders of a nation-state, and under the thumb of a government. That there is an wrong- headed assumption to expect his consent. Indeed, he did not give his consent at the drawing of borders, or to the birth (or the form) of the government so how can his consent be expected in the present?[/quote]
This is a good time to point out that I am not actually an anarchist. I am an anti-statist, and, for some of the reasons you have mentioned that makes me significantly different from traditional anarchists, and I do not hold the same views on property as they do.
However, I will critique parts of your post:
The raw materials didn’t, but the consumable resources that they became required labor, investment and trade. That is the market.
You can stop this kind of stuff. It’s not very clever and has been thought of by many before you came along.
Yup. No disagreement here. I never said that private property didn’t require force. I am merely arguing that it is more efficient.
Of course, there are differences in acquisition before, like I mentioned.
Well, yes, but fortunately for you someone stands to profit if they can buy up that land and make it user-friendly.
Right, but the point is that the state is clearly a HUGE over-claim of illegitimate (in the sense of Neo-Lockean property theory) property acquisition. How you can deny this is beyond me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.[/quote]
Well, I’ll tell you this much, I’m calling dibs on the land mass that makes up the continental US, and about 20 miles out to sea, if Anracho-Capitalism ever becomes reality. Of course I’ll sell the vast majority of it off (or rent it out).
09/29/2010, Sloth made his claim.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like the United States does? Funny how you seem to shoot yourself in the foot here.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This still doesn’t answer the question. What was incorrect about your original post? You said people didn’t need the state and even preferred no state when choosing arbitration - is this false then?
I contended that you need state power to make aritration viable and that people who arbitrate want it and are happy to have it.
You disagreed. So you now agree with me? Or not?[/quote]
This will be the last time I answer this question. I stated something incorrectly in my original post. Yes, private arbitration is enforceable nowadays in government courts. My point was that historically it was not always so.
But this is irrelevant. I have already explained that private arbitration without force is far from the only method available for dispute resolution in a stateless society.
Can you explain to me the difference? The only difference I can see is if you are talking about using force to obligate someone to some task.
I just simply don’t know. I don’t claim to know if objective morality exists. All I can say is that I cannot prove it does, but people do seem to agitate for similar things.
Btw, TB23, is it possible that we take this to PM if we are going to continue this, only because having to respond to long posts by multiple people muddles the actual debate that we are having (not to mention the mega-sized hijack of this thread).
Edit: And I’ll respond to your main post above, tomorrow some time.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.[/quote]
Well, I’ll tell you this much, I’m calling dibs on the land mass that makes up the continental US, and about 20 miles out to sea, if Anracho-Capitalism ever becomes reality. Of course I’ll sell the vast majority of it off (or rent it out).
09/29/2010, Sloth made his claim.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like the United States does? Funny how you seem to shoot yourself in the foot here.
[/quote]
On the contrary, I acknowledge the need of authority to establish and maintain a society and, yes, a ‘free’-market. I acknowledge the unfortunate need to use force–or at least to threaten with the use of–in order to establish order in human society. I also accept that unanimous consent and perfect voluntarism can’t be a deal-breaker (or again, there is no private property in the first place), therefore, will not accept such an argument.
Private property without authority and/or coercion is mysticism (borrowing it from the other thread). Take my comment for example. Say I did stake my claim to cover all of the US land mass, what would you say to that? Too big? Based on what laws? What are the regulations of your homesteading then? What is the maximum size a claim can be made for? Who decided that size? Did everyone, past, present, and future consent? If not, can they then encroach upon property and do as they wish? Who says they can’t? Who made such a law for everyone?
Allow me to make it easier, though. I claim only the lands presently held by the US government in the event of an Anarcho-Capitalocalypse. Am I still making too big of a claim?
But, let’s get real local. Say I plant my house 3 feet next to a homesteader who has previously claimed a scant few acres. I tell him his claim is too much. Am I wrong? Who says? Is there unanimous consent past, present, and future that he is right and I am wrong?
Private property doesn’t exist without authority and at least the threat of force to claim ‘imaginary lines’ (an anarcho phrase used for borders, I now use for property lines) on matter none created.
And imaginary lines on matter that none created, which we call private property, certainly doesn’t exist because of the unanimous consent and uncoerced voluntarism of everyone past, present, and future.
[quote]TB asked:
Well, which is it? Does a “duty” to take care of your child exist regardless of a person’s “subjective valuations”? Yes or no?
Dabba;
I just simply don’t know.[/quote]
Ask yourself this, what good could come of society built on “I don’t know” when it comes to a parent’s duty to care for their child? If this is the form of ultimate freedom and liberty, let it pass me by.
Frankly, I think you do know. I think you’re a better man than this. Judging from previous posts, I think those words are a defense mechanism for a world view that met a very, very, tough real world question.
What I think is that you want to say, “Yes damnit, ok. There are things we just have to plant our feet on, stick our chests out, and declare right for everyone. And the moral duty to one’s children is one of those things.” However, you saw the fatal concession in saying so. If I was to guess, you’ll be trying to reconcile this question, your answer, and what you REALLY think, for a few nights.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Well, quite frankly, nothing. You are right, there is nothing “legitimate” about property, at least not objectively. Property is a matter of inter-subjective consensus. IE you only own the shirt on your back because those in your society agree (at least externally) that you have the right to.
[/quote]
Exactly my point. It is all about social consensus which doesn’t really go well with typical libertarian thinking. In fact there are plenty of libertarians around who deny the entire concept of society.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Great, you’re a Marxist. Have fun with that.
[/quote]
How boring. I’m nothing close to a Marxist.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Ok, so do you want to redraw all property in the world then? Is that your grand plan?
[/quote]
No. My grand plan is not to act like a religious zealot about property. To understand that property is only legitimate within a larger social framework and thus some small allowances must be made for the good of society.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
The difference, once again slow one, is that the state makes HUGE over-claims on its land
[/quote]
That is entirely subjective. You think it is HUGE over-claims whereas I think it is acceptable.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
and ONLY uses coercion to obtain property.
[/quote]
Untrue. Countries often buy and sell property. Now you could argue that they use coercion in the form of taxes to obtain the money to purchase in the first place; but again this is not always the case.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I haven’t here. But, it’s honestly been done a fucking million times. You’re new at this, so I’ll cut you some slack, but do some damn research next time.
[/quote]
I have done some research. I’ve read 100+ pages of forum posts on the issue and countless blogs. And it hasn’t been covered properly. The only proper coverage of it has admitted that property rights are not absolute (for instance there is an interesting article on mises on property easements).
You still haven’t adequately covered why it is different and evil when the state does it but not when the individual does.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.[/quote]
+1000 more.
This is a great point that will not be legimately explained.
Morevoer, the backstop answer - “well, property is authorized by force, then, I guess” - is an admission that, well, everything can be authorized by force too.
And, property rights enforced by force is - wait for it - an act of coercion committed by one against another.
Property rights are not enforced by force but rather defense.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Property rights are not enforced by force but rather defense.[/quote]
Nope, just as I did not consent to laws or boundaries inaugurated before my time or notice, I am not bound by the lines you drew around your property, which I did not consent to.
See Dabba (fellow anti-statist) on this point - force is what is used, and it is more efficient, in any event.
Edit: it should be noted, I am shamelessly riffing on Sloth’s point. Also, for noting this, I hope I buy good favor with him when the Anarcho-Capitalocalypse occurs and he gives me Colorado.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I buy good favor with him when the Anarcho-Capitalocalypse occurs and he gives me Colorado.[/quote]
Very well. Let it be so!
Oh man, I could get used to this.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Property rights are not enforced by force but rather defense.[/quote]
Nope, just as I did not consent to laws or boundaries inaugurated before my time or notice, I am not bound by the lines you drew around your property, which I did not consent to.
[/quote]
The beauty about self defense is that it usually catches arrogant people by surprise to be met with the killing end of a rifle.
Go ahead and trespass on someone’s property where there are heavily armed people ready to kill intruders (if you’re feeling particularly arrogant try some place like a Colombian coca plantation).
Regardless of what you want to call it initiating violence is the what an anarchist opposes.
If none were to initiate violence self-defense would not be necessary. However, we know this can only happen in Utopia so we must take precautionary measures for our life and property.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t help it, here. A common objection of the anarchist is that it his misfortune to be born within the borders of a nation-state, and under the thumb of a government. That there is an wrong- headed assumption to expect his consent. Indeed, he did not give his consent at the drawing of borders, or to the birth (or the form) of the government so how can his consent be expected in the present?[/quote]
This is a good time to point out that I am not actually an anarchist. I am an anti-statist, and, for some of the reasons you have mentioned that makes me significantly different from traditional anarchists, and I do not hold the same views on property as they do.
However, I will critique parts of your post:
The raw materials didn’t, but the consumable resources that they became required labor, investment and trade. That is the market.[/quote]
Not alot of time, but there’s an obvious response. I don’t dispute that consumables on the market require labor, trade, etc. The subject is how the materials were acquired today and at the origin of the ‘property.’ Like I said, ultimately private property (therefore the free market itself) relies on claims of authority over matter-none-created, backed by actual or threat of force, imaginary lines, and a disregard of imperfet universal consent and voluntarism.
[quote]
Of course, there are differences in acquisition before, like I mentioned.[/quote]
Ultimately, no.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
+1000. But you will see lots of hand-waving and glossing over this fact by libertarians. Don’t expect a straight answer.[/quote]
+1000 more.
This is a great point that will not be legimately explained.
Morevoer, the backstop answer - “well, property is authorized by force, then, I guess” - is an admission that, well, everything can be authorized by force too.
And, property rights enforced by force is - wait for it - an act of coercion committed by one against another. [/quote]
Sloth believes in magic. He believes that the state somehow creates property rights. But, property is a law just like any other, and laws are respected to the point at which they are viewed as legitimate. When he asks me all of these questions as to how property titles will be decided, the only honest answer I can give is, “I don’t know”. The inter-subjective consensus of any given society is what determines property rights, even now. And so it will determine them when the state is gone.
It must be noted that I am not necessarily advocating this “inter-subjective consensus”. I am just using it as a conceptual box to describe the reality of social interaction. I have my own preferences that I would try to persuade people to agree to, but it doesn’t really matter since many people believe in some form of private property anyways. As well, some believe in communal property. Both are compatible with a stateless society.
My view is that if you want to protect the resources that you consume, then you ought to respect the way that others protect the resources they consume. If you don’t, both of you will find yourself without protection of your resources. The state can only seize resources and use them for different purposes. Private property can only use the resources it owns to create things, so when private firms create products, they are (in a very real sense) only using their own resources to create said product.
As far as you logically extending the force used to protect private property with unlimited coercion, well I suppose you fall prey to that as well then, since you advocate forms of property as well. Are you for unlimited coercion?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
See Dabba (fellow anti-statist) on this point - force is what is used, and it is more efficient, in any event.[/quote]
No, like I said before, I am an anti-statist, not an anarchist. This is where I part ways with Lifticus (whom I believe is an an-cap). I didn’t feel the need to mention this distinction before because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion we were having. It seems now that property is being talked about more, it has gained relevancy.
It should be evident that he has a different conception of property and statelessness than I do.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Private property is attained through homesteading or purchase on the open market. The state simply seizes land and claims it as its own.
[/quote]
I can’t help it, here. A common objection of the anarchist is that it his misfortune to be born within the borders of a nation-state, and under the thumb of a government. That there is an wrong- headed assumption to expect his consent. Indeed, he did not give his consent at the drawing of borders, or to the birth (or the form) of the government so how can his consent be expected in the present?
Yet, private property suffers the same issues. No man created the matter of the earth, the water, nor the air. Yet, men at some point siezed control–exluding all others from doing as they too wished with matter none created–of something that is not his. Land, earth, and ore didn’t materlize through the magic of the market place. No, force and the threat of, established authority over the land and it’s resources. The same establishes it’s borders…err, boundries. Private property assumes consent, and where none is given, relies on force. It doesn’t matter if I didn’t consent to people owning beachfront property back when someone first ‘claimed’ it. I just have to tolerate the tacky little house and shops ruining the scenery.
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
Agree totally with this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not alot of time, but there’s an obvious response. I don’t dispute that consumables on the market require labor, trade, etc. The subject is how the materials were acquired today and at the origin of the ‘property.’[/quote]
Err, no. This is not what TB23 and I were discussing. You and little Phaethon decided to come on here on your white horses to intervene in the debate that we were having and make your stupid little jokes which have no bearing in a serious discussion.
That being said, original property acquisition is a tough issue, but if you really want to go that route, then I guess we should give America back to the natives? How about the earth back to the wildlife? Should we resurrect the Neanderthals and give them their lands back?
Your position is simply impractical and tries to dodge the issue.
Incorrect again. I will say this one more time. I am NOT an anarcho-capitalist. I do not presuppose an entirely private property society. On the contrary, I envision a fair amount of public property existing in a potential stateless society and it does exist within a free market.
Again, if you’re going to apply this criticism, then it applies 1000 times to the state.
By any theory of property, the modern state is a HUGE HUGE HUGE over-claim of property.
But, anyways, it’s rare that I see “conservatives” making this criticism. In fact, this is usually the main criticism from the communists and left anarchists. Kind of reveals conservatism for what it really is.
Actually, yes, and you still have not offered up a serious reason why.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On the contrary, I acknowledge the need of authority to establish and maintain a society and, yes, a ‘free’-market. I acknowledge the unfortunate need to use force–or at least to threaten with the use of–in order to establish order in human society. I also accept that unanimous consent and perfect voluntarism can’t be a deal-breaker (or again, there is no private property in the first place), therefore, will not accept such an argument.[/quote]
Great. Never said it could be. Continue with your misrepresentation:
The funniest part of all of this is that it applies tenfold to the state. Yet, you seem to ignore this part. And, I can’t answer all of those questions. No one can. The only thing that matters is what people believe is right and legitimate, and that is what decides property rights.
Well, of course if you could purchase all of that land, go for it. I assume you can’t.
And this is where the argument fails. Because, relatively speaking, businesses take up a tiny tiny tiny fraction of land, especially compared to the government.
Holy shit. How many times have I mentioned that private property requires force? You are slower than I thought.
So, the solution is to then grant a massive amount of private property (the state) to a select group of individuals? Logic. Get some.