Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

An-cap communities are states?

rated by 0 users
This post has 91 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene Posted: Mon, Aug 15 2011 2:39 PM

I think in a free society, people would live in communities where special laws would be made. For example I would not want to join a community in which it is allowed for a parent to abuse his children or to abuse animals. So I assume such communities will have a set of laws, perhaps even some income redistribution schemes. So how would that be different from a modern state? Is it only size?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:00 PM

These voluntary societies rely on contracts and voluntary cooperation. The modern state relies on aggression w/o contracts to back it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:09 PM

For more detail, see http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25202/434733.aspx#434733 and the two posts after it.

The essence: the state is institutionalized violation of NAP. Voluntaryism is simply the understanding that we have institutionalized this and working to end it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:18 PM

 

A common error.

In reality, the state is compatible with NAP. Yes, thats correct. Its only that libertarians misunderstand relationship between state and property. The fact is, state owns all property in its area. How else could the case be? Given that the state can take whatever the hell it wants at any given time, only giving partial property rights to people in its area, more percisely renting rights or such, though they are misinterpreted by libertarians as being full property rights, hence libertarian confusion on how state is the aggressor.

Given this premise, it is obvious that any person in a given state's are is in fact using state's property and as such implicitly agreeing with the conditions of use of state's property, hence contractual relation between person and state legislation.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:25 PM

Eeeew. That's gross.

If you take that definition of the state, then yes. But such authority to own everything must be bestowed by some divine being or derived by logic, and neither is true.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

When and how did the USA government become legitimate owner of the area it claims?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:29 PM

Haha, ridiculous idea:

It homesteaded it! By creating the illusion that it owned the land, it successfully prevented people from settling it without its permission and then it homesteaded the property.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:31 PM
Daniel, Sure, the establishment of the area as property of state may not be compatible with the dreams of the Lockeans, but the practical functioning of the state is compatible with NAP
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 3:40 PM

We could then just as easily argue God owns us all and that priests must control us and that they are not really initiating aggression when burning us at stakes but merely punishing us for sins, which as defiance in the face of the eternal.

I think Rothbard covered self-ownership, so we can reject the above as a form of worldly government.

 

Also, the government "allowing" us anything assumes objective value judgments, which don't exist.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

aervew:
Daniel, Sure, the establishment of the area as property of state may not be compatible with the dreams of the Lockeans, but the practical functioning of the state is compatible with NAP

Are you talking about the USA  government or the state in general?

If you are talking about the USA government, then how is it compatible with the NAP?

If you are talking about the state in general, then you avoided the question.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

As far as the US goes, it would be disingenuous to claim that there was no force used in aqcuiring land. However...

Every concession that Native Americans made is written in contract and signed, as with Mexico, and other territories that the US bought from other states. When the first settlers came, they contracted land from England who claimed to own the Americas. The history of aggression goes back very far, and it is not so clear as to who the aggressor is and who actually "homesteaded" the land as far as NAP goes. There are some clear violations of NAP on the side of the US in its history, however the totality of the situation is not so clear from a legal standpoint.

I agree with the statement that the US state is not the legitimate owner of the land it claims, however, there is no legal precedent for such a claim. If you want to deligitimize it by way of NAP standards, you've got to go way back to find out who owns what, and it makes it incredibly hard to legitimize any property thereafter.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 4:31 PM

Oh God, you're right.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Wheylous,

not to be a bugger, but if you agree with my post above and still think the things you possess are yours, you should probably pause a minute before critiquing occ/use property theory.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 4:47 PM

That's why I said "Oh God" as in "only divine intervention may now save us." Because humans can't possibly work this mess out.

Though arguably righting the wrong is impossible, as the victims are dead, and you don't have property rights once you're dead. Hence, no property can be returned. And inheritance laws are not really AnCap.

But still. It's a crazy concept.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

And that's all I'm saying. Either you've got a big web to untangle, or the US is consistent with NAP at this point.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 5:55 PM

Eugene:
I think in a free society, people would live in communities where special laws would be made.

Please clarify. Does an area of privately owned land qualify as a "community" in your opinion?

Eugene:
For example I would not want to join a community in which it is allowed for a parent to abuse his children or to abuse animals.

Please clarify. Are you saying you'd like to live among people who think it's okay to invade someone's home under certain aggressive circumstances?

Eugene:
So I assume such communities will have a set of laws, perhaps even some income redistribution schemes. So how would that be different from a modern state? Is it only size?

Until you clarify your previous statements, I don't see how this question even makes sense.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 5:58 PM

Birthday Pony:
As far as the US goes, it would be disingenuous to claim that there was no force used in aqcuiring land. However...

Every concession that Native Americans made is written in contract and signed, as with Mexico, and other territories that the US bought from other states. When the first settlers came, they contracted land from England who claimed to own the Americas. The history of aggression goes back very far, and it is not so clear as to who the aggressor is and who actually "homesteaded" the land as far as NAP goes. There are some clear violations of NAP on the side of the US in its history, however the totality of the situation is not so clear from a legal standpoint.

Apropos to this, England itself is still legally the property of the British monarch, whose claim goes back all the way to... you guessed it, the Norman Conquest of 1066.

Birthday Pony:
I agree with the statement that the US state is not the legitimate owner of the land it claims, however, there is no legal precedent for such a claim. If you want to deligitimize it by way of NAP standards, you've got to go way back to find out who owns what, and it makes it incredibly hard to legitimize any property thereafter.

I don't see how this follows. How do the historical circumstances of property invalidate the concept of property per se?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 6:08 PM

BP is saying that the land we live in is actually property of long-dead Native Americans. And we have no claim for the land.

I think I might have found a loophole.

1) Property doesn't exist after death (I am assuming here)

2) Had the unlawfulness been spotted in time, the US govt would have had to return the land, but the Native Americans are dead

3) Arguably, the US govt of the same time is also dead.

4) Both parties are dead, so US is open to homesteading

5) We own "our" land

Anyway, this question is similar to the one of corrupt contracts. If I give you land which I don't own, and you (w/o knowing) give that land to someone else, what do we do about it? Arguably every receiver is responsible to know the source of his land and verify its validity, so the land must be given all the way back.

I am still interested in my numbered argument above, though. Because the contracts did not specify what type of government the land was given to. Arguably, the contracts are actually invalid. Thus, the Indians in reality still owned the land, and since they're dead, the land was open to homesteading.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

I am not saying that historical circumstances deligitimize property, I'm saying that the US state is consistent with NAP. If you want to take on the state by way of NAP, then you'll have a lot of going back to do. If you don't want to bother yourself will making moral corrections to the entirety of human history, then as far as NAP is concerned, the US is the owner of all the land it claims and only grants partial property rights to its citizens.

Wheylous, the contracts that the US signed do not allocate land to a person or group of persons, but the entity called the US government. As far as those contracts are concerned the US government still exists and still has a claim to the land.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 664
Points 13,095

When and how did the USA government become legitimate owner of the area it claims?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25618/432733.aspx#432733

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/24595/429657.aspx#429657

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Tue, Aug 16 2011 3:48 AM

So I assume such communities will have a set of laws, perhaps even some income redistribution schemes. So how would that be different from a modern state? Is it only size?

If some  people want to form their own welfare state, why should we stop them?

Please clarify. Are you saying you'd like to live among people who think it's okay to invade someone's home under certain aggressive circumstances?

Is it invasion, if he wants it? If mr. X owns some land, decides that it's OK for private police to search for potential animal abusers in his property and people who agree with that move there, it's totally voluntary.

Your analysis of Rothbard is wrong. Rothbard claims that homesteading is only legitimate way to form ownership to virgin land. As he stated:

"It is true that originally the English Craown gave land titles unjustly to favored persons (for example, the territory roughly of New York State to the ownership of the Duke of York), but fortunately these grantees were interested enough in quick returns to subdivide and sell their lands to the actual settlers"

Ownership was illegitimate until real settlers gained the land.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Aug 16 2011 7:51 AM

Arguably the US government is an illegal entity, as the social contract is bull anyway. Thus, the contracts were never "legal" (besides the sense of using force to enforce them, but that is irrelevant)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Illegal from what standpoint? Did settlers not homestead land? Was it not contracted to them?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Aug 18 2011 12:24 PM

"Further, of the state, defined as "the ultimate authority to which in a given territory no recourse to a higher authority exists," Radnitzky states, "that coercion is not a characteristic that is implied in its definition. If (per impossibile) the contract theory were a tenable theory, then the institution would not be coercive and yet qualify as a state." Certainly, one is free in one's definitions, but not all definitions are fruitful.

According to Radnitzky's definition, for instance, the founder-proprietor of a settlement - a gated community - would have to be considered a state, because he decides about membership (inclusion and exclusion) and is the ultimate authority in all settler-conflicts. However, the founder of a community does not exact taxes, but he collects fees, contributions or rents from his follow-settlers. And he does not pass laws (legislates) regarding the property of other, but all settler-property is from the outset subject to his ultimate jurisdiction.

Similarly, it is conceivable that all private land owners in a given territory transfer their land to one and the same person, for instance, in order to so establish the ultimate authority which according to Hobbes is necessary for peace. Thereby, they sink from the rank of an owner to that of a renter. Radnitzky would also term such a proprietor, established in this way, a state. But why? It is contrary to common terminology and hence confusing.

And which purpose would be served, to label something entirely different with the same name: namely an institution, which derives its status as ultimate authority neither from an act of original appropriation nor from a real estate transfer on the part of original appropriators? It is this difference in the genesis of the institution, that lets us speak of (coercive) taxes and tribute and of laws and legislation instead of voluntarily paid rents and accepted community standards and house rules. Why not, in accordance with conventional speech, reserve the term state exclusively for the former (compulsory) institution?

However, regarding this (compulsory) state, then, this must be kept in mind: that its institution is even then 'unjust', if (per impossible) it rested on unanimous agreement. Consensus does not guarantee truth. A state-agreement is invalid, because it contradicts the nature of things. At any given point in time (and absent any pre-stabilized harmony), a scarce good can only have one owner. Otherwise, contrary to the very purpose of norms, conflict is generated instead of avoided.

Yet multiple ownership regarding one and the same stock of goods is precisely what state-agreement implies. The consenting parties did not transfer all of their land to the state but consider themselves as free land owners (not renters). Yet at the same time they appoint the state as ultimate decision-maker concerning all territorial conflicts and thus make him the owner of all land. The price that must be paid for this 'unjust' - contrary to the nature of things - agreement is permanent conflict.

Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent." - Hoppe

 

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 480
Points 9,370
Moderator

"Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent." - Hoppe
Wrong. 

Just because you are the cause of a conflict does not make it impossible for you to be able to solve that same conflict. 

 

Hoppe is just throwing statements on the wall and hoping something will stick enough to convince you.  He has no rigorous logic supporting his argument.  Nothing new from him. 

Before calling yourself a libertarian or an anarchist, read this.  
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 8:45 AM

I like the general argument of Hoppe, but he says that if there exists someone with authority over your property, this a conflict of ownership which leads to conflict. This means that even in a private court system you would have the same conflict. Maybe less, but still there. Hence, Hoppe shouldn't be arguing as if he can present a plan which eliminates the conflict (as he makes it seem he's doing).

Illegal from what standpoint? Did settlers not homestead land? Was it not contracted to them?

The settlers had the right to homestead free land, which is all good and fine. Yet the government also took Native American land by force, which is not fine, thus illegal. It had no power to claim land from thousands of miles away and then contract it out at its free will.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Every concession of Native American land (aside from those long dead) is in contract, and signed. Plus, if, as you've said, property does not continue after death, then how is conquest illigetimate?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 186
Points 4,290
TANSTAAFL replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 4:28 PM

How can the US state be consistent with NAP when it collects taxes with force?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 4:45 PM

 

Every concession of Native American land (aside from those long dead) is in contract, and signed.

I can also hold a gun to someone's head and have them sign a contract to give me all their land. But it's not legal, as it is a violation of the NAP. Hence the contract doesn't hold.

Plus, if, as you've said, property does not continue after death, then how is conquest illigetimate?

I argue that they never legally gave up their property. Hence, they actually always retained it. Therefore, they lost it when they died.

How can the US state be consistent with NAP when it collects taxes with force?

The argument is that the US government actually owns all the land. Hence, it can tax people living on it (like rent). Which I am trying to disagree with.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 6:34 PM

"Wrong."

No. Right.

"Just because you are the cause of a conflict does not make it impossible for you to be able to solve that same conflict."

It does when your very existence [the state] is the conflict. Tell me how the state can solve the problem of institutionalized theft?

"As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation - as flexible state-made law." ~ Hoppe

"Hoppe is just throwing statements on the wall and hoping something will stick enough to convince you.  He has no rigorous logic supporting his argument.  Nothing new from him."

lulz! .. considering the total inadequacy of your "refutation", I'd suggest you learn to respect your betters.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Wheylous, I understand what you're saying and agree with you, but there are still things you need to sort out. You have claimed that the US violated the NAP, but you have not demonstarted how the US as a whole is an illegal entity. And even if Native Americans still owned their land, they have since died, and it is now the US government's, no?

Also, as I said earlier, you should really be thinking about what your critique of occ/use is at this point, as well as whether or not it is legitimate for an entity that stole land to sell it to another that knows full well where it came from.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sat, Aug 20 2011 8:23 AM

there is no such thing as "US as a whole". Abstract concepts can not own anything. Only physical beings, in this case, humans. And which humans? Only those, who aquire something through legitimate means but not force or threat of violence (your "US as a whole")

 

"And even if Native Americans still owned their land, they have since died, and it is now the US government's, no?"

If I steal your bike and then kill you and all your family and other relatives, am I becoming a rightful owner of the bike? What kind of logic is that?

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Sat, Aug 20 2011 9:39 AM

"And even if Native Americans still owned their land, they have since died, and it is now the US government's, no?"

If I steal your bike and then kill you and all your family and other relatives, am I becoming a rightful owner of the bike? What kind of logic is that?

Not even that. The land wouldn't be the government's because the government didn't homestead it after the death. So it's more like me killing your family and suddenly, without any homesteading, all your property becomes mine.

 you have not demonstarted how the US as a whole is an illegal entity

True. Not step-by-step. I will need a bit of time to write it out. I will then reply here.

whether or not it is legitimate for an entity that stole land to sell it to another that knows full well where it came from.

What I'm saying is that it's not.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 664
Points 13,095

Your analysis of Rothbard is wrong. Rothbard claims that homesteading is only legitimate way to form ownership to virgin land.

I agree that Rothbard makes that claim. The thing is, Rothbard employs the Orwellian tactic of doublethink. He claims contradictory positions--that way he can resort to whichever suits him on a particular occasion. Thus, Disney is the legitimate owner of Disney World because it had a contract with the construction workers, even though those workers did the physical homesteading of the land. But Britain was not the legitimate owner of the American colonies because it did not do the physical homesteading of the land, even though those settlers had a contract with Britain.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Except that they built most of the railroads and infrastructure, and claimed to their rent paying subjects (the ones who came to the US of their own free will knowing the situation) that the land was theirs.

And FOTH made a pretty good point too.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Maiku, I'm not actually a proponent of the ideas I'm putting forth. I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm arguing from a position of corporate existence and NAP. If corporations can exist, then so can governments. Most of the states in the US started as land charters.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Sat, Aug 20 2011 4:12 PM

Except that they built most of the railroads and infrastructure

Not the government, private entities.

claimed to their rent paying subjects ... that the land was theirs.

While it actually wasn't. I can also claim that land is mine while it isn't. It doesn't later make it mine. But I see where you might be going with that... can you elaborate on that idea?

 If corporations can exist, then so can governments.

Well, I mean, they do. But that's not what you meant. Governments rely on aggression. Corporations don't. Unless you mean that private property in general doesn't exist. That's a whole different argument. Also, if you say "licenses," well, the corporations don't need them anyway (in AnCap).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

"But Britain was not the legitimate owner of the American colonies because it did not do the physical homesteading of the land, even though those settlers had a contract with Britain." ~Fool on the Hill

The difference is that Britain's government was a 'gang of thieves writ large,' i.e., they had already committed violence through taxation. In similar fashion, I would be opposed to a private mafia's illegitimate 'ownership' of land. But, to my knowledge, the owners of Disney Land had not committed any violent acts.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

"Not the government, private entities."

History fail. The state provided the funds, investment, and contracts. Meaning that the railroad had an understanding that while they can operate their business, the state is the one who has control over the land.

"can you elaborate on that idea?"

The "actual homesteders" only homesteaded the land after the US made a claim to it and relied on state force for protection, lending legitimacy to it. Often times they contracted the land from the state.

"Governments rely on aggression. Corporations don't."

Corporations rely on government. How can a corporation exist without a state to guarantee it limited liability? A contract with all persons involved? Great, but that limited liabilty won't extend to people suing over class action suits, so the whole idea of an LLC falls apart. Maybe a contract with everyone affected by the corporation? Congratulations! You've reinvented the nation-state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 664
Points 13,095

The difference is that Britain's government was a 'gang of thieves writ large,' i.e., they had already committed violence through taxation. In similar fashion, I would be opposed to a private mafia's illegitimate 'ownership' of land. But, to my knowledge, the owners of Disney Land had not committed any violent acts.

Taxation of what? Money? The state creates money and is thus the owner of money unless it renounces its ownership, which it never does. If this counts as a violent act, then Disney kicking someone out of a hotel room constitutes a violent act. Besides, Disney and other companies have forbidden people from using their land before they build anything on it. Disney World still includes much unhomesteaded land. But do you think they wouldn't resort to violence if I tried to build something there?

Not the government, private entities.

Government pays capitalists to build something = built by capitalists

Capitalists pay workers to build something = built by capitalists

I guess that is consistent in a certain way...

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 3 (92 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS