Take territory A (government) and territory B (anarcho-capitalism). What are the practical differences (forget just appropriation issues for the meantime) for those who are born into these areas and how can you tell if the reemergence of the State has occurred in the latter? Since property is private under AC, the laws will already exist for one born into an AC territory. It seems persons will be faced with "if you don't like the laws, move to another jurisdiction" scenario under both systems. Or am I misunderstanding how consent unfolds under AC. Once one reaches adulthood in the context being able to sign contracts, does the protection agency of a given territory have to acquire consent from that person for representational purposes or is that person automatically forced (if they don't pay, they are deported) into protection because they were born there? AC writers often talk about subscription based representation in contrast to territorial, but if all property is private, might private protection agencies require a contractual agreement from those who live or travel in a particular territory?
Protection agencies cannot require anything to live or travel anywhere else. The property owners decide who may live and travel to their property, and the protection agency's only purpose is to provide force when the property owners run into problems.
The most probably difference between A and B is that in B you would never run into a protection agency unless you seek them out.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The same can be said of government; if one doesn't break the law, then there will be no contact. So as far both systems are concerned, there aren't much practical differences?
Wolff: The same can be said of government; if one doesn't break the law, then there will be no contact. So as far both systems are concerned, there aren't much practical differences?
The moment you step into any city you will run into a government customs officer, cop, billboard or sign reminding you to obey.
That would not happen without government.
Nope. If the property owner in question does not like their PDA, they can change them at will. The PDA cannot force them to remain its client nor can it be its own arbitrator in cases between it and its client (as the state is.) As for individuals who do not own the property they reside on, indeed they will have to live if they don't like it and cannot bring about preferrable arrangements. Same if they lived under a commune. So it is indeed convenient to abstract away appropriation issues, which is what makes a world of difference between a state and any legitimate entity. A cute attempt, though.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
"Nope. If the property owner in question does not like their PDA, they can change them at will. The PDA cannot force them to remain its client nor can it be its own arbitrator in cases between it and its client (as the state is.)" As for individuals who do not own the property they reside on, indeed they will have to live if they don't like it and cannot bring about preferrable arrangements.
Presumably, there will be a contract between the PDA and property owner(s), which would stipulate how long the contract would last. Are you claiming it can it be broken at will? Incentive issues aside, would an indefinite contract result in a government? Say the satisfied property owner wanted to pass along the PDA to their heirs. Would this be a legitimate contract?
"So it is indeed convenient to abstract away appropriation issues, which is what makes a world of difference between a state and any legitimate entity. A cute attempt, though."
It wasn't a "cute attempt", just an acknowledgment that just appropriation is indeed a legitimate difference.
Upon their death, their property presumably passes on to someone. If it is the PDA, it simply acquires partial ownership over it. If it is someone else, they can at any time revoke their consent, as the contract was never between them and the PDA. And yes, contracts could be broken, which is why penalties will have to be specified in them for such an event.
Fine.
Jon Irenicus: Fine. -Jon
Terse, aren't we?
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I'm just suspicious by nature.