Things that other people use, sure.

Current laws and customs allow for absurd extensions of property.

The state, as you would expect, is the worst offender. Governments think they own vast tracks on land. They forbid people from moving freely across theses borders.

12/7/2007 3:11:49 PM

Do some rich people waste money on a lot of nice things that they don't really need? Sure. But that doesn't mean you should be able to just break into their house and take their things simply because you don't have as many things as them. And some people like Mr. Horn apparently feel very strongly about that, strongly enough to shoot the thieves.

12/7/2007 3:17:46 PM

i still can't believe this guy is for real. You must have skipped out on Econ 101 or not acquired any basic knowledge on how the world works or have had any exposure to the real world.

What you say may sound "nice" but it would NEVER be viable. You have been watching Star Trek too much. Why are you in college since you hate the institution so much. What is the purpose of your degree in helping to create your hippyrific utopian paradise.

12/7/2007 3:51:34 PM

No, I did well in the basic economics class I took at State. I understand mainstream economics. I'm even fond some leftist economists, such as the CEPR folks.

I used more or less accept that stuff. Now I question the basis of capitalism.

12/7/2007 4:09:51 PM

competition breeds innovation
work hard play hard
do well and get rewarded

on the other hand if your goal in life is to sit around smoking weed, playing acoustic guitar, and chatting philosophy then yeah maybe you would have a problem with capitalism since it provides no free handouts

12/7/2007 4:25:53 PM

Quote :

"Maybe. If that's the price of eschewing force and coercion, I can accept it. "

And this is the eternal problem of your position and those like you. You would have all live in poverty and suffering to ensure that a few don't live wealthy. Who are you to determine that I should suffer for another just so that he can live as comfortably as I?

Quote :

"Yes, though I imagine locks would be unneeded in most egalitarian communities."

Such as?

Quote :

"To prevent injury or death, yes. As I said, if the burglars attack or threatened Horn, he acted reasonably."

So if Horn just beat the ever loving shit out of these guys would that be ok?

Quote :

"Trade with other communities, as now. I certainly wouldn't want primitivism or anything similar."

And how does the community trade? Either by taking from all (equally too, lest you have a hierarchy) or by having one or few trade using products of their labor and then trade within the community. This works very well and it's the basics of capitalism and barter systems. The problem that your system ignores is when one or more members refuse to contribute or trade. In capitalist/barter societies, they do without. In your society, they just take from others.

Quote :

"That would be for the community to decide, eschewing violence and coercion, as always."

So give an example. And remember, no leaders, no hierarchy and no coercion.

Quote :

"No. People enjoy being productive and creative. They might not work as hard as under capitalism, but I don't believe everyone would become a parasite. "

Right, people enjoy being productive and creative, but that doesn't always mean that what they enjoy doing ensures their survival. In a barter capitalist society, they produce in part to trade and sustain themselves where they normally can't or don't want to. In your ideal society, they just take from those that do, reducing their joy and productivity.

Quote :

"Discussion and consensus, ideally. If that fails, perhaps direct democracy."

Fine, 10 of the people in your community want to grow corn in the field and 10 want to grow potatoes. Now what?

Quote :

"What is property? Why does this millionaire have a claim on something he never uses?"

Who are you to say he never uses it? If you don't use your care every day, can I take it from you?

Quote :

"How did he get this money?"

By trading a product of his labor for it. Again, don't let the fact that money is involved confuse you. It's no different than if he worked an hour at the baker for some food, an hour at the tailor for some clothes, an hour at the cobbler for some shoes and hour at the electrician's for a TV, he still worked for it, or if he didn't directly work for it, he traded with someone else to get something to trade for it.

Quote :

"Yes, that is how things work in the US currently. The state enforces these rules."

It's how things work around the world. There isn't a society in the world that doesn't have some sort of hierarchy and trade system.

Quote :

"on the other hand if your goal in life is to sit around smoking weed, playing acoustic guitar, and chatting philosophy then yeah maybe you would have a problem with capitalism since it provides no free handouts"

Actually, he could do rather well in a capitalist society. Provided he could find someone that found utility in him being another cat stevens

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : sdfg]

12/7/2007 4:33:40 PM

Quote :

"And this is the eternal problem of your position and those like you. You would have all live in poverty and suffering to ensure that a few don't live wealthy. Who are you to determine that I should suffer for another just so that he can live as comfortably as I?"

As I said, I don't believe it'd be as much of a problem as you expect. As for your question, I'm a human being, and I've used my reason and empathy to conclude that violence and coercion should be opposed.

Quote :

"Such as?"

I'm was talking about after the revolution. However, you can find various examples of this. There's at least one collective in Raleigh without locked doors. Many don't communities don't lock up.

Quote :

"So if Horn just beat the ever loving shit out of these guys would that be ok?"

Wait, what? I don't see how this follows.

Quote :

"And how does the community trade?"

Voluntarily, of course.

Quote :

"Either by taking from all (equally too, lest you have a hierarchy) or by having one or few trade using products of their labor and then trade within the community. This works very well and it's the basics of capitalism and barter systems. The problem that your system ignores is when one or more members refuse to contribute or trade. In capitalist/barter societies, they do without. In your society, they just take from others."

The individuals involved would have to agree on the specifics. There are many possible arrangements, some of them involving markets. As you recognize, equality taken to extremes would become ridiculous. People wouldn't all do the same thing. They do what the enjoy and/or what the community needed.

As for the lazy, would depend on the community. I'd favor a generous approach. As for making them do without, that's hard accomplish without force. I'd rather have a few parasites than bands of thugs. However, I'm sure some communities would reserve support for those who worked.

Quote :

"In your ideal society, they just take from those that do, reducing their joy and productivity."

Taking from others without their consent would never be my ideal. In some cases, as I explained, I consider it just and reasonable. Stealing that millionaire TV isn't likely to reduce his joy or productivity much. That's not the ideal, though.

Quote :

"Fine, 10 of the people in your community want to grow corn in the field and 10 want to grow potatoes. Now what?"

If they can't come to an agreement, perhaps they split the field. It would depend on the exact circumstances and people in involved. I'd condemn anyone who attempted to use force to resolve the problem.

Quote :

"Who are you to say he never uses it?"

Sometimes this is obvious.

Quote :

"If you don't use your care every day, can I take it from you?"

Depends. Ideally, we'd figure out a way to share it. People do this all the time, even in our society.

Quote :

"By trading a product of his labor for it."

Or simply by owning capital.

Quote :

"It's how things work around the world. There isn't a society in the world that doesn't have some sort of hierarchy and trade system."

And that's why anarchism is a global movement.

12/7/2007 4:59:41 PM

Quote :

"I've used my reason and empathy to conclude that violence and coercion should be opposed."

Why don't you have empathy for people who are robbed of their belongings by petty thieves

12/7/2007 5:05:36 PM

Quote :

"As I said, I don't believe it'd be as much of a problem as you expect"

And I expect you're wrong.

Quote :

"As for your question, I'm a human being, and I've used my reason and empathy to conclude that violence and coercion should be opposed."

And how do you propose to get me to suffer so that those who don't work as hard as I do can have the same luxuries that I work for withou using force, coercion or violence?

Quote :

"I'm was talking about after the revolution. However, you can find various examples of this. There's at least one collective in Raleigh without locked doors. Many don't communities don't lock up."

Mostly because they never met anyone who thinks that because they only use their pizza cutter once a month that every bum and hobo in the greater raleigh area has a right to waltz into their home and take it.

Quote :

"Wait, what? I don't see how this follows."

You said deadly force should only be used to prevent death or injury. So what about non deadly force? Since the locks (as non force protection) were broken (by force), so force to answer force seems fair no?

Quote :

"Voluntarily, of course. "

And of those that don't volunteer?

Quote :

"The individuals involved would have to agree on the specifics. There are many possible arrangements, some of them involving markets."

And to have markets, you have to recognize property rights.

Quote :

"As you recognize, equality taken to extremes would become ridiculous."

And yet that is what you aim for.

Quote :

"People wouldn't all do the same thing. They do what the enjoy and/or what the community needed. "

To what end? To the end that they enjoy it or it satisfies their needs and no more.

Quote :

"As for the lazy, would depend on the community. I'd favor a generous approach. As for making them do without, that's hard accomplish without force. I'd rather have a few parasites than bands of thugs. However, I'm sure some communities would reserve support for those who worked."

And you would wind up right back here as those removed from unsupportive communities would prey on those communities that have a "generous approach" and then you run into "tradgedy of the commons" situations on a communal scale.

Quote :

"In some cases, as I explained, I consider it just and reasonable. Stealing that millionaire TV isn't likely to reduce his joy or productivity much."

And what is a millionare but someone who simply has more than you. Whether it's TVs or oragami cranes, what you are saying is that in some cases it is just and reasonable to steal from someone just because they have more of something than you.

Quote :

"If they can't come to an agreement, perhaps they split the field."

The corn growers don't want to split the field, and the potato growers won't either.

Quote :

"It would depend on the exact circumstances and people in involved. I'd condemn anyone who attempted to use force to resolve the problem."

And when each side refuses to yield?

Quote :

"Sometimes this is obvious."

And who made you judge? Who gave you the authority and the power to determine this over the owner of the item in question?

Quote :

"Depends. Ideally, we'd figure out a way to share it. People do this all the time, even in our society. "

Right, but what if you want it today, and so do I? You only use it some times, so I get to have it, because I use it more.

Quote :

"Or simply by owning capital. "

Capital is gained by trading products of labor, whether directly or indirectly, it's still trade.

Quote :

"And that's why anarchism is a global movement."

So is suicide. Doesn't make it a good idea.

12/7/2007 9:22:45 PM

Quote :

"And I expect you're wrong."

Yes, we disagree. I believe we established that a while back.

Quote :

"And how do you propose to get me to suffer so that those who don't work as hard as I do can have the same luxuries that I work for withou using force, coercion or violence?"

By arguing with you on the Internets. It doesn't seem to be working. I can accept that.

Quote :

"Mostly because they never met anyone who thinks that because they only use their pizza cutter once a month that every bum and hobo in the greater raleigh area has a right to waltz into their home and take it."

I'm not sure anyone thinks that way. Yes, I know you'll accuse me of thinking that way. And so on. But you'll note that I've never advocated stealing pizza cutters. Monthly use is still use.

Quote :

"So what about non deadly force? Since the locks (as non force protection) were broken (by force), so force to answer force seems fair no?"

No. Force should be used to prevent injury or death, not protect property.

Quote :

"And to have markets, you have to recognize property rights."

Not to the extent that we do now.

Quote :

"And what is a millionare but someone who simply has more than you. Whether it's TVs or oragami cranes, what you are saying is that in some cases it is just and reasonable to steal from someone just because they have more of something than you."

Yes. Specifically when one person has significantly more of something than everyone else and you lack it. Food and land are the best examples. Stealing luxuries is more dubious.

Quote :

"And when each side refuses to yield?"

I doubt they would. In any case, they should resolve it without force or coercion. Each individual will have to decide what do if things seem impossible. As in our society, serious conflicts would be painful and unpleasant. I accept that. You won't be able to use that to get to me accept force.

Think of all people as friends and family. How do you resolve conflicts in such groups? Do you use force?

Quote :

"And who made you judge?"

We all have to judge for ourselves. When we disagree, we discuss and debate.

Quote :

"Capital is gained by trading products of labor, whether directly or indirectly, it's still trade."

Why should capital produce money for the supposed owner? Why should the workers run the factory and split the income evenly?

12/7/2007 9:46:11 PM

Quote :

"But you'll note that I've never advocated stealing pizza cutters. Monthly use is still use."

So what use is no longer use? Once every 6 months? Once a year? Once every 5 years? Every 10? How infrequent does my neighbor's use of his hottub have to be before I can claim it for my own?

Quote :

"No. Force should be used to prevent injury or death, not protect property."

So if someone is making off with my new computer, I can't tackle the guy?

Quote :

"Not to the extent that we do now. "

True, but beyond the extent that you want to recognize them.

Quote :

"Specifically when one person has significantly more of something than everyone else and you lack it."

Through no fault of your own I'm sure.

Quote :

"Food and land are the best examples. Stealing luxuries is more dubious. "

Food can be grown and raised, land can be rented or traded for. Luxuries can always be traded for.

Quote :

"I doubt they would. In any case, they should resolve it without force or coercion. Each individual will have to decide what do if things seem impossible. As in our society, serious conflicts would be painful and unpleasant. I accept that. You won't be able to use that to get to me accept force. "

Like I said, you would let all suffer so that none could do better.

Quote :

"Think of all people as friends and family. How do you resolve conflicts in such groups? Do you use force?"

Most friend and family groups have a hierarchy or leader to resolve conflicts. And yes, force is used, whether in the form of direct punishment for violations of the decision of the leader (like swating the kid with his hand in the cookie jar) or in the form of denail of access to the resources of the group. Threat of punishment is used to resolve conflict once a leader has made a decision.

Quote :

"We all have to judge for ourselves. When we disagree, we discuss and debate."

Right, but if you don't have the right to have something you're not using, and I determine you're not using it, then you have no right to prevent me from using it, and thus there is nothing to discuss.

Quote :

"Why should capital produce money for the supposed owner?"

It doesn't. It's traded for that money.

Quote :

"Why should the workers run the factory and split the income evenly?"

Because the workers didn't buy, build or take the risk on the factory in the first place, so it's not their factory.

12/8/2007 9:14:17 AM

Quote :

"So what use is no longer use? Once every 6 months? Once a year? Once every 5 years? Every 10? How infrequent does my neighbor's use of his hottub have to be before I can claim it for my own?"

I'll worry about those details later on. Specially when I'm planning on taking your property. (Yes, I'm coming for you.)

You can claim it for your own at at any time, but the neighbor might disagree. I'd suggest negotiating with him if you want to use it.

Quote :

"So if someone is making off with my new computer, I can't tackle the guy?"

Hard to say. That get into a gray area. Among comrades, I'm sure that'd be fine. However, letting yourself get tackled is dangerous. If we're grappling and you're better at it than I am, I'm owned. My life is in your hands. For this reason, people will use deadly force to prevent being tackled in some cases.

Quote :

"Food can be grown and raised, land can be rented or traded for. Luxuries can always be traded for."

Yet people go without under capitalism. Trading for food would be better than simply taking it, of course, but that's not always possible. I don't know about renting. Then you have landlords. Squat on the land, though, and you only have comrades.

Quote :

"Like I said, you would let all suffer so that none could do better."

So that none can use force, sure. In case you hadn't noticed, force also makes people suffer. We suffer every day to maintain the current system.

Quote :

"Most friend and family groups have a hierarchy or leader to resolve conflicts. And yes, force is used, whether in the form of direct punishment for violations of the decision of the leader (like swating the kid with his hand in the cookie jar) or in the form of denail of access to the resources of the group. Threat of punishment is used to resolve conflict once a leader has made a decision."

Family wasn't a good example, as families usually are hierarchical. However, now that I'm adult, things are fairly even between me and my parents. While I can see such structures in family, I don't see that happening between friends. Not all my friends are anarchists, but we seem to naturally eschew hierarchy within the group. We certainly don't use force on each other.

Quote :

"Right, but if you don't have the right to have something you're not using, and I determine you're not using it, then you have no right to prevent me from using it, and thus there is nothing to discuss."

I don't think it should ever work like that. That could be the end result, but discussion should always happen. People should always be free to use nonviolent methods to convince other people of nearly anything. Downright harassment should be frowned on, but it's better than a gun.

If your a rich boss, now, the discussion might not get anywhere, and my comrades and I might still decide to squat on the land you believe you own.

Quote :

"Because the workers didn't buy, build or take the risk on the factory in the first place, so it's not their factory."

Yet they work in it daily. But to you, some piece of paper, not use, determine ownership.

12/8/2007 10:51:57 AM

Quote :

"You can claim it for your own at at any time, but the neighbor might disagree. I'd suggest negotiating with him if you want to use it. "

Right, but if he doesn't use it, he doesn't have the right to it, so why would I bother negotiating when clearly if I use it I would have a right to it? Especially since he's not allowed to use force to defend his claim, all he can do is bitch at me, and I've got this really nice pair of noise canceling headphones.

Or to put it another way, why would I negotiate with the guy at burger king for some fries from Mconalds?

Quote :

"Hard to say. That get into a gray area. Among comrades, I'm sure that'd be fine. "

So it is ok to use force to protect property?

Quote :

"Yet people go without under capitalism."

Lack of will on the part of others is not my problem. If people have no interest in survival, who am I to prevent them from their course of self destruction.

Quote :

"Trading for food would be better than simply taking it, of course, but that's not always possible."

So grow, raise or kill your own.

Quote :

"I don't know about renting. Then you have landlords."

And what is wrong with landlords? Mine is pretty awsome actually. In exchange for a small sum of money, I get a shelter, which I didn't build or buy, unlimited access to their water, all maintenance, cleaning, repairs and upkeep are taken care of and I don't have to pay taxes on the land that I'm on.

Quote :

"Squat on the land, though, and you only have comrades. "

And property disputes.

Quote :

"In case you hadn't noticed, force also makes people suffer. "

Right, so there is suffering either way. Now which produces the least suffering?

Quote :

"We suffer every day to maintain the current system. "

Do you really suffer? Are you without basic needs and constantly in fear that those few luxuries which you do have will soon be reposesed by people who think you don't use it enough?

Quote :

"We certainly don't use force on each other."

If someone broke the rules and used force to take what wasn't rightfuly theirs I bet you would.

Quote :

"That could be the end result, but discussion should always happen."

Why should I discuss anything with you when you don't have the right to the property in the first place?

Quote :

"If your a rich boss, now, the discussion might not get anywhere, and my comrades and I might still decide to squat on the land you believe you own. "

So discussion is the way to go ... unless you have less than the person you're discussing, then you can force your will upon them ... oh, but they can't force theirs on you.

Quote :

"Yet they work in it daily. But to you, some piece of paper, not use, determine ownership."

The owner uses the factory every day to employ workers to produce products that the owner trades for money to trade to the workers for their labor. Sounds like use to me.

12/8/2007 11:27:57 AM

Quote :

"So it is ok to use force to protect property?"

As I said, I think tackling is a gray area. Among comrades, I imagine it'd be an acceptable way to express strong feelings about a subject. As a last resort, of course. And depends where it led.

On the other hand, could you fault someone for using a weapon to prevent grappling? I'm not sure.

I'll type more later. I'm at work now. (Capitalism FTW?)

12/8/2007 2:28:02 PM

Seeing as how the Texas law is written, I really don't see how he is going to be found guilty of any crime. He clearly was defending a neighbors property.

I think we should be allowed to defend property. And while bringing a gun with you to confront burglars can indeed escalate the situation - I would never go unarmed when confronting a burglar. I think the sketchy part gets narrowed down to the reason why he shot them - was he fearful for his person - or did they threaten him? If they made any move to either run away, or surrender, I don't think he should have shot.

But regardless, Texas doesn't care about my moral interpretation of the situation, the way their law was written, I think this guy is clear.

12/9/2007 8:33:51 PM

by the way, nice find HUR

and i think people need to be more aware of the ability for people to protect themselves

i always wonder about people who threaten others or get physically aggressive with strangers - not knowing if the stranger has a gun...thats a dangerous game to play

12/9/2007 8:35:04 PM

thanks paul; you graduating this fall??

Quote :

"I'll type more later. I'm at work now."

sounds like you are selling out your comrades bud. Working for the man; i mean shit why don't you just take a big duffle bag and take what you need to make some quick loot. I mean your employer obviously does not need all that expensive equipment at your work. You on the other hand need a nest egg to set up your hipprific community. Let me know where your social-libertarian community is. This way I can steal all your shit b.c you do not believe in property rights and I do not fear retaliation since violence is not warranted over property

12/9/2007 8:53:56 PM