|
5003 Posts
1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error.
I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :|
I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous.
Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work.
|
Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore
On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism?
Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft.
|
5003 Posts
I'm also gonna make one more point
If we put that much ideal to "State Based" government, we can also defend any accusations against state based government through similar means. Of course, we'll have a lot more counterexamples to state based governments, SIMPLY BECAUSE we've been living through them the entire time.
What makes you think "Free Market" based societies won't have that issue? Your points are well, "This is bad, maybe this idea will work better". Maybe your idea will work better in fixing those specific issues, but what makes you think other issues won't spring up? Remember, you're dealing only with theory, and not enough actual applications. I guarantee if the system was applied to a real society then we'll have issues just as bad as the issues you have against state based governments within 50 years.
|
On August 29 2010 09:26 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? This was one of my points when I said everyone has to agree to their negative-liberty capitalistic rules. The second someone doesn't agree and acts on the disagreement, a wide variety of private armies will probably kill you.
The thief is estopped from claiming property over the stolen resource, because if he argues the owner has no claim over it, then neither does he, who did nothing more to create or appropriate it.
So yes, people will try to stop you physically if you steal or insist on invading their property, to the degree that is seen as reasonable by everyone else. Someone who bazooka'd a passerby would obviously be ruled to be in the wrong, you can respond to aggression only to the degree that the aggressor is estopped to disagree, any more and you're risking yourself a bad reputation and "credit score".
|
On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft.
In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor.
|
But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home.
Sure. Why not? See the homesteading principle. See John Locke's definition of property. Anything that is unowned can be made use of without any coercion (since it is unowned and unclaimed). That is what makes it yours.
What do you mean by an 'inherent concept'? Your claim on property is a warning to others that you will defend it from being taken by others. I would argue that it is a natural 'right', and that it is the naturally emergent behaviour of human beings. Is that what you mean by 'inherent concept'?
Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.)
So because nation states are oppressive and use violence to get what they want when it suits them, the notion of property is therefore an artificial construct and a meaningless claim? I don't understand. Like I said before, I'm assuming you would defend your property from me. What is artificial about that? What is meaningless about that?
If a company intentionally floods your home then you have a legitimate claim against them for they have unequivocally caused damage to you. You said this has happened before by companies. Do you have a source? I'd like to examine it and the circumstances behind it.
|
I don't know much about how anarcho-capitalism is theoretically supposed to work but in any system that does have a central body of control will have serious issues with infrastructure.
The main issue is simply resources. Building and maintain large scale infrastructure (roads, pipes, etc.) requires a single large coordinated entity. This entity can be a corporation so I suppose the system could function with government fiscal sized corporations.
So in essence the corporations become the replacement for the government and what ever system they use to choose the director is what the system becomes (most corporations fall under some variant of dictatorship or feudal class system, think employees vs investors).
Therefore corporations need to be powerful or the nation's infrastructure will fail, but if this is the case then the system becomes of an unfavourable form for most dictatorship or feudal class system.
So how would you see anarcho-capitalism work in a favourable manner?
|
On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work.
Uh, ok, again then.
1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about
2-"Externalities". You can think of those externalities, say externality x. You can quantify the amount of X corporation Y has done. You can ostracize corporation Y for doing X, to the relative amount that it's done it. Therefore, externalities can hurt profits, therefore, externalities are "capitalizeable"
3-Market failures are a non-issue, unless you're kind enough to be more specific on how can someone screwing over his own capital can hurt someone else, and why can't that be restituted for, in a free market. Because I'm pretty sure you can, every time, when properties are well established, and not the public mess of today.
4-"You need the entire world". No, not really, you just need the state, somewhere, to fall, and that can be accomplished voluntarily too. Think about it, what if it goes bankrupt? What if people stop believing in it and stop paying taxes? It goes down the very next day, thugs will have to get real jobs, too bad for them.
|
On August 29 2010 09:37 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home. Sure. Why not? See the homesteading principle. See John Locke's definition of property. Anything that is unowned can be made use of without any coercion (since it is unowned and unclaimed). That is what makes it yours.
It is a strange definition of non-coercion that includes genocide, which is the basis of homesteading at least in America.
What do you mean by an 'inherent concept'? Your claim on property is a warning to others that you will defend it from being taken by others. I would argue that it is a natural 'right', and that it is the naturally emergent behaviour of human beings. Is that what you mean by 'inherent concept'?
First off, saying that property rights are a naturally emergent behavior is an empirical claim, and requires empirical evidence. Not to say that there isn't any: anthropologists actually study the development of the concept of property, but their empirical description contradicts many of the claims made by modern advocates of property.
And again, you ignore the issue of how we distribute property; that is, who gets to claim what
Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.)
So because nation states are oppressive and use violence to get what they want when it suits them, the notion of property is therefore an artificial construct and a meaningless claim? I don't understand. Like I said before, I'm assuming you would defend your property from me. What is artificial about that? What is meaningless about that?
[/QUOTE]
Again, you fall back on the example of a home, but under modern society, and under anarcho-capitalism as well, people can own property besides their homes. Would you agree that people only have the right to defend their homes, and not other property? If they have the right to defend property besides their homes, where does this right come from?
|
On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about
Markets imply more than simply "freedom". There exist non-market societies without governments.
|
5003 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about 2-"Externalities". You can think of those externalities, say externality x. You can quantify the amount of X corporation Y has done. You can ostracize corporation Y for doing X, to the relative amount that it's done it. Therefore, externalities can hurt profits, therefore, externalities are "capitalizeable" 3-Market failures are a non-issue, unless you're kind enough to be more specific on how can someone screwing over his own capital can hurt someone else, and why can't that be restituted for, in a free market. Because I'm pretty sure you can, every time, when properties are well established, and not the public mess of today. 4-"You need the entire world". No, not really, you just need the state, somewhere, to fall, and that can be accomplished voluntarily too. Think about it, what if it goes bankrupt? What if people stop believing in it and stop paying taxes? It goes down the very next day, thugs will have to get real jobs, too bad for them.
1) Go read my explanation of #1 that I posted for someone. You'll realize we're talking about completely different things.
2) What does this have to do with personal values? I don't think you quite realize what kind of split what you're arguing may lead to.
3) Market Failure is a non issue? okay i don't think we're going to be able to discuss anything here unless you start being realistic
4) What? I think you missed my point lol
|
On August 29 2010 09:09 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 08:39 McFoo wrote:
If there were no governments to kick BP up the arse who would be cleaning up the gulch? The poor local fisherman who don't have the resources to do it? Who would take responsibility for protecting things like the enviornment when:
A. It's unprofitable
B. Profits are the highest priority of all institutions
This reflects the main problem with anarcho-capitalism: externalities. There are no institutions in place to clean up the inherent chaos and mess an unregulated market creates. Who owns the sea? There's your basic answer... formed as a question. lol.
Hehe, what a cop out.
|
On August 29 2010 09:34 Milkis wrote:
I'm also gonna make one more point
If we put that much ideal to "State Based" government, we can also defend any accusations against state based government through similar means. Of course, we'll have a lot more counterexamples to state based governments, SIMPLY BECAUSE we've been living through them the entire time.
What makes you think "Free Market" based societies won't have that issue? Your points are well, "This is bad, maybe this idea will work better". Maybe your idea will work better in fixing those specific issues, but what makes you think other issues won't spring up? Remember, you're dealing only with theory, and not enough actual applications. I guarantee if the system was applied to a real society then we'll have issues just as bad as the issues you have against state based governments within 50 years.
I don't have a concrete idea; I don't know how PDA (private defense agencies) will work just as much I don't know what product Apple will make next. The main theory is that the free people know what's best for themselves, and the state is a relic of the past when information was a scarce resource. Everyone today has ample access from a variety of businesses and companies, and they could easily, easily provide more efficient protection services if the old state would allow them too.
And also I think we don't match on the definition of a state. A state for me is a monopoly of coercion in any given geographical area.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Lol who will provide the guarantees behind currency? There still needs to be a regulator organ with substantial financial power which makes it far from anarchy.
|
A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing?
By saying land that you do not live on, are you talking about land that is literally unused in any way? In which case you would be right, because land in the wilderness does not belong to anybody. And the "squatter" would have a legitimate claim to his camp, because the original owner does not. Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership.
Besides, why would somebody choose to fund for the defence of totally unused land? Remember, without a state you must fund for your own defence. You can't just offload the cost of it to the taxpayer, as it is with the rich wielding the power of government. So if the wilderness is literally doing nothing for you, what a waste it would be to try to "defend" it. That's assuming you even feel like you have any sort of claim to it in the first place (but why would you?).
|
On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor.
Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free?
I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation.
The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice.
|
On August 29 2010 09:51 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing? Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership.
Says who?
|
On August 29 2010 09:51 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing? By saying land that you do not live on, are you talking about land that is literally unused in any way? In which case you would be right, because land in the wilderness does not belong to anybody. And the "squatter" would have a legitimate claim to his camp, because the original owner does not. Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership. Besides, why would somebody choose to fund for the defence of totally unused land? Remember, without a state you must fund for your own defence. You can't just offload the cost of it to the taxpayer, as it is with the rich wielding the power of government. So if the wilderness is literally doing nothing for you, what a waste it would be to try to "defend" it. That's assuming you even feel like you have any sort of claim to it in the first place (but why would you?).
I agree with this, but it is also contrary to the notion of formalized private property, in which one does not need to justify one's ownership of property once ownership is acquired. My point was that having a system of private property based on fiat rather than use is incompatible with non-coercion, yet anarcho-capitalism claims to support both fiat property and non-coercion.
|
5003 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:50 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:34 Milkis wrote:
I'm also gonna make one more point
If we put that much ideal to "State Based" government, we can also defend any accusations against state based government through similar means. Of course, we'll have a lot more counterexamples to state based governments, SIMPLY BECAUSE we've been living through them the entire time.
What makes you think "Free Market" based societies won't have that issue? Your points are well, "This is bad, maybe this idea will work better". Maybe your idea will work better in fixing those specific issues, but what makes you think other issues won't spring up? Remember, you're dealing only with theory, and not enough actual applications. I guarantee if the system was applied to a real society then we'll have issues just as bad as the issues you have against state based governments within 50 years. I don't have a concrete idea; I don't know how PDA (private defense agencies) will work just as much I don't know what product Apple will make next. The main theory is that the free people know what's best for themselves, and the state is a relic of the past when information was a scarce resource. Everyone today has ample access from a variety of businesses and companies, and they could easily, easily provide more efficient protection services if the old state would allow them too. And also I think we don't match on the definition of a state. A state for me is a monopoly of coercion in any given geographical area.
The reason I brought the state-based government up was because you seemed to attack it to in order to defend your theoretic system. All I'm saying is that your ideal system may not be so ideal when you actually apply it, and apply it in the long run, and you may find various other problems.
|
On August 29 2010 09:50 BluzMan wrote:
Lol who will provide the guarantees behind currency?
Are there guarantees behind fiat currency? The guarantee to use violence perhaps. There is no guarantee of stability. The dollar has lost over 98% of its value in the last century thanks to inflationary policies. The first thing a private currency would have to do is ensure its stability or people would naturally not use it. De-facto standards are not "guarantees" from a centralised authority, but they do emerge naturally and work well all over the place. The same is true of currency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
