I can't believe this thread is still going

3/17/2010 2:49:49 PM

Quote :

"No the real point is it doesn't do any fucking good to go round and round with you about any of this shit because it's all based in LALA-Land."

I would have agreed with you not too long ago. But in actuality it is completely rational.

3/17/2010 2:57:16 PM

OMG you are salisburyboy.

3/17/2010 4:02:16 PM

Quote :

"The point is that the use of coercion should be minimized as much as possible. I think it may be possible for defense to be privatized, but that becomes complex and we're a long way from that point. But it is certainly possible for many other instances of coercion to be cut out."

You would think most people could agree with the part in bold, yet some individuals ITT fervently argue against it, as the logical conclusions that come from the premise would conflict with their favorite government programs.

I don't like the idea of privatized defense, but I think you could have adequate national defense and have it paid for without using force. Perhaps you could fund it with something like park fees or whatever. Or, you could have a very small tax that would arguably benefit every single citizen. My problem with pure anarcho-capitalism is that there is nothing to stop foreign countries from invading and occupying one small piece of land at a time, where no private defense force is stationed, and eventually they've occupied many small pieces which add up to a very large piece.

3/17/2010 4:23:34 PM

Any tax is taken by force. I wish you nutballs would define the actual minimum level of government service needed to function at whatever level you think we should as a society. You can't just keep saying "well, it's bad so we need less" because you either have to stop saying it at some point or the logical conclusion is anarchy.

3/17/2010 4:42:27 PM

I would say the constitution is a pretty good guide for how much government we need. It does say exactly what the federal government can do, after all. When I talk about limited government, I mean government limited and restrained by the constitution that we have but now choose to ignore. I don't advocate anarchy.

3/17/2010 4:50:48 PM

No, the logical conclusion is for people to acknowledge that government is coercive and treat it as they would any other coercive institution. If society decides that some amount of aggressive force is necessary for the society to protect itself, then they would have to allow for that. But the logical step would still be to continually be working to find ways to minimize the amount of coercion necessary. Most of what our government currently does is not necessary for the protection of society, so that is coercion that could easily be eliminated. Once we get to a point where all that is left is defense, we should begin discussing and exploring options to reduce legitimized aggressive violence even further.

^ The constitution is a great start. I think it may be possible to take it further than that, but there are potential problems as you mentioned. These problems may be able to be overcome, but a constitutionally limited government would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2010 4:56:22 PM

Quote :

"You would think most people could agree with the part in bold, yet some individuals ITT fervently argue against it, as the logical conclusions that come from the premise would conflict with their favorite government programs."

The fact is that you can only defend property rights with coercion. If you think people should be able to own anything, then you believe in coercion.

Quote :

"Perhaps you could fund it with something like park fees or whatever."

And how would you make people pay those fees? Coercion.

Quote :

"My problem with pure anarcho-capitalism is that there is nothing to stop foreign countries from invading and occupying one small piece of land at a time, where no private defense force is stationed, and eventually they've occupied many small pieces which add up to a very large piece."

It's not foreign countries you have to worry about, it's the guys with the most guns. You'd have mob rule.

Quote :

"I would say the constitution is a pretty good guide for how much government we need."

You really think those old stupid people actually crafted gods law in government?

3/19/2010 9:10:25 PM

Quote :

"It's not foreign countries you have to worry about, it's the guys with the most guns. You'd have mob rule."

And this is different than what we currently have, how? In order to have mob rule, those being ruled must submit to the mob. People do so under government because of the general perception that the government is on our side. If people generally felt that the mob was against them, they would not allow it to accumulate such power.

As far as foreign enemies, I think voluntary militias are a good enough defense. The most powerful military in the history of the world cannot even gain control of the people of Iraq. When society decides they do not wish to be ruled, they cannot be forced to comply, only attempted to be destroyed. Destroying everyone really serves no purpose worth fighting for.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2010 11:32:10 PM

Quote :

"And this is different than what we currently have, how?"

We're all part of the mob, we can elect our mob leaders.

Quote :

"The most powerful military in the history of the world cannot even gain control of the people of Iraq. When society decides they do not wish to be ruled, they cannot be forced to comply, only attempted to be destroyed."

We could have easily gained control of them, it just would have taken measures that we do not support. You think all of the conquered people in history wanted to be conquered?

3/23/2010 1:29:02 AM

Quote :

"And this is different than what we currently have, how? In order to have mob rule, those being ruled must submit to the mob. People do so under government because of the general perception that the government is on our side. If people generally felt that the mob was against them, they would not allow it to accumulate such power."

What the fuck is your point? People generally DO feel that the government is on our side.

Quote :

"As far as foreign enemies, I think voluntary militias are a good enough defense. The most powerful military in the history of the world cannot even gain control of the people of Iraq. When society decides they do not wish to be ruled, they cannot be forced to comply, only attempted to be destroyed. Destroying everyone really serves no purpose worth fighting for."

We do have the power to control every single man, woman, and child in Iraq. But if we did that you would bitch and moan about using aggressive violence against innocent citizens. Jackass.

3/23/2010 8:43:55 AM

Quote :

"What the fuck is your point? People generally DO feel that the government is on our side."

Kris was claiming that without government, we'd have mob rule. So the point is that if instead of the government, it was a sinister mob attempting to run our lives, most people would fight back and not put up with it as they do now.

Quote :

"We do have the power to control every single man, woman, and child in Iraq. But if we did that you would bitch and moan about using aggressive violence against innocent citizens."

If by control, you mean kill, then that may be true. But we'd probably also have the rest of the world to fight if we dropped nukes all over the middle east.

As long as people are armed, they have the opportunity to fight for their freedom. There is no military that can overtake millions of armed citizens who do not wish to be conquered.

3/24/2010 10:53:38 AM

Quote :

"it was a sinister mob attempting to run our lives, most people would fight back and not put up with it as they do now"

History disproves that. You think slaves wanted to be slaves? You think the people in europe wanted to be conquered and ruled by Rome? You think the Japanese wanted to be defeated? What about the South in the Civil War? People can only fight back so much.

Quote :

"If by control, you mean kill, then that may be true. But we'd probably also have the rest of the world to fight if we dropped nukes all over the middle east."

So then you expect other governments to enforce international law?

Quote :

"As long as people are armed, they have the opportunity to fight for their freedom. There is no military that can overtake millions of armed citizens who do not wish to be conquered."

Ok, then your theory should be easy to prove. Judging by your rhetoric I'll assume you are armed and do not want to be controlled by an oppressive government, why don't you try to stop it? If you are able to, I'll admit I'm wrong. If you aren't then I'll get to have a hearty laugh at your imprisonment or death.

3/24/2010 5:40:39 PM

IF there were enough armed people pissed off enough at our government for armed rebellion
THEN there would be armed rebellion.

What does that tell you? There is no shortage of guns in our country. People generally don't consider taxes to be oppressive and like living in the most comfortable country in the world.

You're the crazy one, not everyone else.

3/25/2010 9:56:44 AM

I'm not arguing for armed rebellion, maybe you should re-read this thread. We were discussing how society would defend itself without a government monopoly, and I'm merely stating that it always comes down to the people being responsible for defending the society. This is true with or without government.

There is no reason private defense could not provide the same amount of defense as our current military, without relying on coercion to exist. What keeps the private defense agencies from becoming too powerful? The people of the society do. Do you really think it would be easier for a defense agency to overtake all other defense agencies and then rule millions of people against their will than it would be for a government which already has monopoly control of a region and the support of the population to oppress and abuse its citizens? What method do we currently have to resist an oppressive government? That is the purpose of militias. Ultimately, with or without government, it comes down to the citizens protecting their own lives and liberties. With no government monopoly, it would be exactly the same, only no one institution would have the immense power granted to the government currently.

Right now we have many different governments all over the world, with their own military force. The only difference is right now you are forced to support these based on where you live, instead of having the choice to support those which you feel are best. The threat of abuse of power already exists currently, and I think would be lessened by allowing for competition instead of enforcing territorial monopolies.

3/25/2010 11:25:19 AM

Quote :

"There is no reason private defense could not provide the same amount of defense as our current military, without relying on coercion to exist."

Who would pay for it without being required to pay?

Quote :

"What keeps the private defense agencies from becoming too powerful? The people of the society do."

What would stop, or for private industries or mobs resorting to the same kind of coersion we have now? People don't fight against the amount of coercion we have now do we?

Quote :

"Right now we have many different governments all over the world, with their own military force"

There's a place in the world with no real government, Somalia. It is essentially a microcosm of the very mob rule that I have described would arise.

3/25/2010 5:56:55 PM

Quote :

"Who would pay for it without being required to pay?"

Anyone who wanted protection without having to do it themselves would pay for the service. Similar to how someone who wants their house painted but doesn't feel like doing it hires someone else. Presumably, this would be the majority of society, since people generally understand the need for defense.

Quote :

"What would stop, or for private industries or mobs resorting to the same kind of coersion we have now? People don't fight against the amount of coercion we have now do we?"

The coercion we have now is legitimized as a part of the system. People put up with it because they see no other alternative. That's why the first step is establishing a valid alternative and people must become united in a belief that we can have a healthy society without coercion.

Quote :

"There's a place in the world with no real government, Somalia. It is essentially a microcosm of the very mob rule that I have described would arise."

Somalia unfortunately is a country that was already in very bad shape when the government fell. You cannot expect it to become a prosperous and thriving society this soon. There has been a lot of progress and I suspect that given enough time the society could stabilize and thrive without a state. Their economy is doing quite well. Unfortunately whenever the political unrest has started to calm, the UN steps in to try to establish an official government, and fighting picks up over who will have control of this government.

3/26/2010 2:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who wanted protection without having to do it themselves would pay for the service. Similar to how someone who wants their house painted but doesn't feel like doing it hires someone else. Presumably, this would be the majority of society, since people generally understand the need for defense."

If everyone on my street pays for defense, why would I? I get it for free.

Quote :

"The coercion we have now is legitimized as a part of the system. People put up with it because they see no other alternative. That's why the first step is establishing a valid alternative and people must become united in a belief that we can have a healthy society without coercion."

And how are you going to force people to continue thinking like that? Or are we in the land of make believe again?

Quote :

"Their economy is doing quite well."

They have the fifth lowest GDP per capita in the entire world. Their economy is dependent on remittances. There's no way anyone sane could say their economy is "doing well". Hell, Haiti's economy is in shambles, and they have twice the gdp per capita of somalia.

[Edited on March 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2010 5:38:18 PM

Quote :

"There has been a lot of progress and I suspect that given enough time the society could stabilize and thrive without a state."

The only industries of note in Somalia are piracy and arms dealing. And piracy is one thing that pretty much everyone, everywhere -- including the most hardened libertarians and anarchists -- agree is a bad thing.

I am always flabbergasted by the desire some hardcore Lib/Anarchist types to paint Somalia as doing OK. It's fucking hell on Earth. It might as well be run by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Frankly I'm surprised it doesn't rain frogs and shit there. And I don't mean "and shit" as throwaway profanity. I'm surprised that feces don't literally fall out of the sky there.

It is locked in a constant state of conflict because -- surprise! -- in an environment without a government, people consolidate into groups that act as mini-governments and vie for enough power share to establish themselves as the sole governing power.

Which brings me to the other thing about you people that flabbergasts me. It's like you people honestly believe that states in some form came to exist over virtually THE ENTIRE PLANET purely by coincidence. As though it were just as likely that we could all live in a stateless environment and the fact that we didn't is just a fluke.

Here's a hint:
1) When a thing is observed happening in 98% of cases, and
2) The remaining 2% consist of people fighting each other to be the one to bring them into the other 98%

THEN THE 98% IS THE FUCKING NATURAL STATE OF THINGS. We form governments because that's the only way we can exist in a world of scarcity.

3/26/2010 5:58:42 PM

What's crazy is this guy apparently formed his ideas on his own, because I assumed he'd been reading some Murray Rothbarth babbling, but he claims to have not heard of the guy.

So let's say we went to a clan system. The only unit of organization is a clan. How do you guarantee there's no coercion over anyone else in your clan by anyone else?

I mean, seriously, if you don't see that history is a constant tradeoff between individuals to form some sort of organization under which all those involved can most agree to abide, and such an arrangement cannot be 100% absolutely perfectly supportive of each individuals selfish desires , then I have no idea what is going on in your head.

And what the hell kind of lifestyle do you live anyway?

[Edited on March 28, 2010 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2010 9:44:25 PM

Ok, I'm starting to wonder how many people on here are actually militia members or wanna-be militia members who are just too scared to leave the comfort of their organized town or city where they have the police to back them up and they don't have to see what the law of the gun truly looks like.

Life isn't going to be Deadwood any time soon. Sorry guys.

3/28/2010 9:52:22 PM

I think what you should be wondering is how many people on here are trolls.

I'm pretty sure ghotiblue is one but I am one of the worst people on this site for going after trollbait. If I were a fish I'd be dead as soon as my mouth was big enough to get around a hook.

3/29/2010 2:31:38 AM

He's arguing for an ideal. Yeah, I'm familiar with the time-tested "this person has views that conflict with my worldview, therefore they must be crazy or a troll" argument. The reality is that we're very, very far from an ideal society. He's not advocating that we immediately dissolve the government. That clearly would not work. The idea is that we should aim for the freest society possible, given our set of circumstances. The founders of this country had that very same idea, understanding the evils that inevitably come from a powerful government. If you don't think we should have a society with as little coercion, force, and violence as possible, then maybe you should honestly re-examine your views, rather than dogmatically cling to whatever makes you feel comfortable.

3/29/2010 3:15:09 AM

I don't think it's particularly dogmatic to say, "No, dumbass, Somalia is not an example to aspire to."

Ideals are also pointless when they violate immutable facts of nature. In an ideal world we'd all be able to drink and smoke and fuck and do drugs and eat fatty foods but still be young and healthy and attractive forever. But we can't do that because nature won't allow for it.

Likewise, maybe in an ideal world nobody would ever want power over anybody else. In a close to ideal world maybe people would want power sometimes but they'd invariably be stopped. That's a very lovely image. I'm picturing it now. I can picture myself with my dick in Scarlett Johansson's mouth, too, for all the fucking good it will do.

And we don't differ in our belief that society should have as little coercion, force, and violence as possible. We differ substantially, however, in our view of "possible."

---

And since I missed this gem:

Quote :

"Anyone who wanted protection without having to do it themselves would pay for the service. Similar to how someone who wants their house painted but doesn't feel like doing it hires someone else. Presumably, this would be the majority of society, since people generally understand the need for defense."

Collective action problem? Tragedy of the commons? Non-excludable good? Free-rider? Do any of these terms mean anything at all to you?

Kris is...I think I'm gonna throw up a little...right on here. Defense is non-excludable. If I don't pay my fair share to Raleigh Defense, Inc., and Durham invades, they can't bloody well defend the entire city except me. Meaning as long as all (or even most) of the other chumps pay, I can get defended for free.

It'd take about 3.2 seconds for everyone in Raleigh to realize this, and soon you'd have an underfunded defense force overrun by the Empire of Durham, which would them impose its government on us. Presumably led by Emperor Coach K.

To say nothing of the fact that it would take about .001 seconds for the people in charge of Raleigh Defense, Inc. to realize that they had a bunch of nice guns bought and paid for by you the customer. Then it would take .003 seconds for you to be on the business end of one of those guns being told you were now a subject of the Grand Poobah of Raleigh, formerly CEO of Raleigh Defense.

3/29/2010 3:42:02 AM

GrumpyGOP, pick your examples more carefully. It is not the force monopoly of the fed. or the state that prevents duram from invading, it is the presence of firearms and the resultant dynamics of combat. This is America, damn it, we lived without government provided defense for longer than we've had it (all those rural farms without phones, just the farmer and his hunting rifle).

And I don't know why people keep bringing up Somalia, their government is more oppressive than most.

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/29/2010 10:21:50 AM

What Somalian government would you be referring to there?

3/29/2010 11:35:11 AM

The islamic courts.

3/29/2010 11:44:40 AM

Which set? The one in control of 1% of the country or the one in control of 1.5%?

3/29/2010 11:54:18 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Nine suspects tied to a Christian militia in the Midwest are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral in the hopes of killing more law enforcement people, federal prosecutors said Monday. The indictment charges members of the group conspired "to levy war against the United States, (and) to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.""

ghotiblue?

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/29/2010 11:55:18 AM

Quote :

"It is not the force monopoly of the fed. or the state that prevents duram from invading, it is the presence of firearms and the resultant dynamics of combat."

OK, how about a country like Britain or Japan where firearms are virtually absent from the civilian population? Does force monopoly keep Birmingham out of London or Osaka out of Tokyo, or does the presence of medieval halberds and samurai swords explain it?

Quote :

"This is America, damn it, we lived without government provided defense for longer than we've had it (all those rural farms without phones, just the farmer and his hunting rifle)."

When population density is extremely low you have a very different situation. We didn't form governments when we were in wandering bands of hunter-gatherers, either.

3/29/2010 1:21:26 PM

Quote :

"What's crazy is this guy apparently formed his ideas on his own, because I assumed he'd been reading some Murray Rothbarth babbling, but he claims to have not heard of the guy."

I never claimed that I haven't heard of Rothbard, only that I haven't read any of his books yet. I am familiar with his ideas and think they make sense. I have read some Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard's mentor.

Quote :

"He's arguing for an ideal. Yeah, I'm familiar with the time-tested "this person has views that conflict with my worldview, therefore they must be crazy or a troll" argument. The reality is that we're very, very far from an ideal society. He's not advocating that we immediately dissolve the government. That clearly would not work. The idea is that we should aim for the freest society possible, given our set of circumstances. The founders of this country had that very same idea, understanding the evils that inevitably come from a powerful government. If you don't think we should have a society with as little coercion, force, and violence as possible, then maybe you should honestly re-examine your views, rather than dogmatically cling to whatever makes you feel comfortable."

Exactly. I really didn't even want to get into private defense, I was just commenting that I think it may be a possibility when society is ready for it -- as Thoreau said, "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

We are a long way from that point though and I think it's pointless to waste time talking about that if we don't even agree that we can handle things like education, health care, etc. without the need for government coercion.

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2010 1:30:22 PM

The guy who taught my dad guitar ran off into the woods and hid out there foraging for the rest of his life. Noone bothered him or anything really. You could always do that.

3/30/2010 8:46:53 AM

That fellow Noone is a real bastard.

3/30/2010 9:25:41 AM

Quote :

"The guy who taught my dad guitar ran off into the woods and hid out there foraging for the rest of his life. Noone bothered him or anything really. You could always do that."

No thanks. I'm actually very happy with my life as it is now. I think this is a great country and am very fortunate that I grew up here. But I also value freedom for everyone (not just myself), and although this country is great, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. But we are unfortunately heading in the wrong direction, with more of our freedom being taken all the time (both economic and civil freedoms). I believe that people are capable of great things when they are free to pursue their own visions and dreams, and government only gets in the way of that.

3/30/2010 9:50:05 AM

So you're an armchair anarchist, who sits around reading stuff online about how private clan justice systems could totally provide for order and paying taxes to support even stuff that's in the constitution like a judiciary (who would enforce said law anyway?), and you say "hey, that sounds cool, I wish we could have that," despite the fact that the world you want has never existed or when it has existed, it has sucked shit.

You'd have more fun if you read a bunch of cyberpunk and wished you could live in that world than if you keep reading irrelevant anarchist economists who make ayn rand look like a pragmatist.

3/30/2010 5:53:23 PM

I wanted to debate this with you in another thread ghotiblue, but since you won't post in any thread you didn't make, I'll do it here. My argument would be that without a government we have no property rights. What right do you have to capital that you had no hand in making? You would say, "I built my house", but what right do you have to preclude others from the earth the house is on, or the trees you used to build it? Nothing can be created by labor alone, and thus we have no right to use coercion to prevent others from using things that we have arbitrarily laid claim to. Only collectively could we have any means to have some sort of method to distribute these goods. Thus the government is the only entity justified in using coercion to enforce this method of distribution.

3/30/2010 6:06:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J47ENHSomc8

[Edited on March 30, 2010 at 6:55 PM. Reason : /]

3/30/2010 6:54:13 PM

Quote :

"My argument would be that without a government we have no property rights."

You can argue they are poor property rights, but not that you don't have them. There are many ways of organizing a society's defense of property. Many third world slums operate entirely without police protection of any kind, and property rights are still enforced by the inhabitants. That is because private security is readily available if public security is not.

To put it the other way, if you want to abolish private property, you are going to need the police to do it. Start arresting people for acting in defense of property, etc. Otherwise, property owners will singularly and collectively threaten violence.

[Edited on March 30, 2010 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/30/2010 9:26:16 PM

I'm being far more philosophical than I generally like to be, but morally, what right does one have to protect something they've arbitrarily declared their's?

3/31/2010 12:45:53 AM

The only right that actually exists. Power. Morals are irrelevant.

If you have the power to claim this spot as KrisLand, then you can. In our current, generally harmonious system of property rights, the power is given to the government to enforce, since they can be bigger than any of us and keep us in line.

If the police suddenly vanished, I guarantee you someone would be coming to take your stuff. And before long, when you really needed something, you'd take it from someone else.

3/31/2010 10:11:08 AM

That's exactly what I said on the first page.

3/31/2010 5:25:26 PM

If you go back, I bet you could find more leaders who derived their power from God or The Divine than any other source.

So, the historical answer is religion.

3/31/2010 6:26:29 PM

Quote :

"Nothing can be created by labor alone, and thus we have no right to use coercion to prevent others from using things that we have arbitrarily laid claim to."

I have not really thought too much about the origination of property rights, but I am familiar with the idea of homesteading and it seems to be the only logical way to assign property. You are correct that nothing can be created by labor alone, but if something is previously unclaimed, such as a tree, and one decides to use that tree to build a boat, the boat should then belong to that person since their labor combined with an unclaimed resource created the boat.

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
-- John Locke

The main question I think is exactly what amount of work is required to have legitimate claim to property. I would tend to agree with you that this would come down to the society to decide collectively. But this would be similar to other legal matters that would need to be decided by society, and would have to be determined by market forces.

This and similar legal issues are actually my biggest uncertainty about a stateless society. I am still attempting to figure out how laws could be agreed upon and upheld voluntarily by the free market. I know there are theories on how this would work, but I have not yet worked through it myself, and in my opinion this is a much bigger problem than mere physical defense.

Quote :

"Thus the government is the only entity justified in using coercion to enforce this method of distribution."

Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, and it is never representative of the wishes of all individuals (at least not on a large scale). Therefore, by saying government is justified in using coercion to enforce distribution, you are claiming that one group of individuals has the right to distribute the property of another group of individuals against their will. This really is equivalent to theft, as unsettling as that may sound to many people here.

4/3/2010 10:27:52 PM

Quote :

"I have not really thought too much about the origination of property rights"

You haven't thought that much about the origination of any rights, you think you have, but you've done it all under the blinders of libertarianism.

Quote :

"but if something is previously unclaimed, such as a tree"

There hasn't been anything unclaimed for decades.

Quote :

"and one decides to use that tree to build a boat, the boat should then belong to that person since their labor combined with an unclaimed resource created the boat."

The fact that there are no unclaimed resources aside, is intention to compound something with labor enough to justify excluding other people from it? Should it be my tree just because I want to build a boat with it?

Quote :

"I have not yet worked through it myself, and in my opinion this is a much bigger problem than mere physical defense."

You haven't worked through any of the two major parts of this. Life and property. You believe people have a right to their lives, unless of course they infringe on the life or property of others to some undefined degree. You believe people have the right to property, but you can't even define what property is. You have really only answered the stupidly easy irrelevant questions about a stateless society. It's like you're saying you can make a time machine, but then only explaining how to make the seatbelt for it.

Quote :

"Therefore, by saying government is justified in using coercion to enforce distribution, you are claiming that one group of individuals has the right to distribute the property of another group of individuals against their will. This really is equivalent to theft, as unsettling as that may sound to many people here."

Individuals will always have conflicting views on what defines property and how to distribute it. Why wouldn't they? If you ask me what I think should be mine, I'd quickly say everything. You can't justify individual ownership of property, the world was given to us collectively, it belongs to us in that fashion.

4/4/2010 9:52:35 AM

Quote :

"You haven't thought that much about the origination of any rights, you think you have, but you've done it all under the blinders of libertarianism."

I believe in self-ownership and non-aggression. These fundamental beliefs frame my political philosophy. Sure, you can argue about whether self-ownership really exists or whether morality really dictates that aggressive force is wrong, but I find these to be simple truths that in my mind (and I think most others as well) are self-evident. Most people innately recognize murder, theft, etc. to be wrong as a violation of these principles.

Quote :

"The fact that there are no unclaimed resources aside, is intention to compound something with labor enough to justify excluding other people from it? Should it be my tree just because I want to build a boat with it?"

As I said, the details regarding when a resource becomes the property of an individual would need to be agreed upon collectively, as would other legal matters. People would come to a consensus in a community so that property rights could be established.

Quote :

"You have really only answered the stupidly easy irrelevant questions about a stateless society."

I never claimed to have all of the answers. Many of these questions do need to be answered collectively. That is the purpose of the market. Ideas supported by society will prosper, while those disliked will disappear. The key is that each individual interacts with society voluntarily instead of being coerced to support ideas they may not approve of. It would obviously be a long process of trial and error to figure out how this society would best operate, but innovations brought about by competition and voluntary exchange can find these solutions much better than one person ever could.

Quote :

"Individuals will always have conflicting views on what defines property and how to distribute it. Why wouldn't they? If you ask me what I think should be mine, I'd quickly say everything. You can't justify individual ownership of property, the world was given to us collectively, it belongs to us in that fashion."

Did you miss the part where I said property rights would need to be decided collectively? We are in agreement on this. However, this is not justification for aggressive force by one group against another.

4/4/2010 11:09:09 AM

Quote :

"Most people innately recognize murder, theft, etc. to be wrong as a violation of these principles."

You can't define those principles, you can't even define theft.

Quote :

"As I said, the details regarding when a resource becomes the property of an individual would need to be agreed upon collectively, as would other legal matters. People would come to a consensus in a community so that property rights could be established."

You countered that yourself:
"Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, and it is never representative of the wishes of all individuals"
So how are you going to define property rights without stomping on the wishes of some individuals?

Quote :

"I never claimed to have all of the answers."

You tend to come at it like you do. If you had not come across so matter-of-fact-ly I doubt I would have taken such an interest in showing you the holes in your theory.

Quote :

"That is the purpose of the market."

The market can't answer questions like these. The market can only distribute goods, it can't define what goods are. The market can't operate without the concept of property, it's impossible for it to define what that concept is.

Quote :

"Did you miss the part where I said property rights would need to be decided collectively?"

But you want individuals to collectively decide what INDIVIDUAL property rights are, I explained why that is impossible to do fairly. I would argue that individuals collectively own all property and individually own no property.

4/4/2010 11:26:41 AM

Quote :

"The market can't answer questions like these. The market can only distribute goods, it can't define what goods are."

The market does determine what goods are available. The goods that people want are available, and those that people do not want are not available. What you're missing in this statement is that this does not only apply to goods, but also services. Defense of property rights is a service. Laws which people feel to be valid would exist in a society where courts and defense agencies were free to compete with each other, and those laws which people do not approve of would be forced out. Therefore, property rights, as well as other laws such as those against murder, theft, etc. would be upheld by the will of the people interacting voluntarily through the market. There are many theories on how this could work.

Quote :

""Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, and it is never representative of the wishes of all individuals" So how are you going to define property rights without stomping on the wishes of some individuals?"

I was referring to a government monopoly when I claimed it is not representative of the wishes of all individuals. With competing defense agencies (private courts, etc.), individuals would be able to decide which laws they support and which they do not. They are always free to choose a different defense agency or none at all.

4/4/2010 12:00:39 PM

I love how Somalia and shanty towns are shining examples of libertarian ideals.

4/4/2010 12:10:53 PM

Quote :

"Defense of property rights is a service."

The definition of property rights is neither a good nor a service. In fact, neither goods nor services can exist without them.

Quote :

"There are many theories on how this could work."

Why don't you name one? Please name a theory or philosopher that claims that you can use the market to define rights. I'd be very interested.

4/4/2010 12:59:32 PM

Legal rights are established by courts, which, in a stateless society, would be a service provided by the market and subject to market forces. Therefore, legal rights would be determined by the market just as any other good or service. These ideas have been explored by numerous anarchist thinkers, including Rothbard, Friedman, and many others. As I said before, establishment of and enforcement of laws is still my biggest question about a stateless society, but this appears to be a good book exploring many of the theories out there: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Law-Political-Economy-Independent/dp/1412805791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270401987&sr=8-1

[Edited on April 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : -]

4/4/2010 1:30:47 PM