Are there any other answers to the original post? Are anarcho-communists in fact anarcho-capitalists?
Really, Eugene? You don't see a difference between capitalists and communists? Ancaps believe in private property and the private accumulation of capital in addition to a free market. Ancoms believe that private property and the private accumulation of capital is evil...In what way is this the same?
If you bend the rules a little bit then they are not incompatable with each other. Anarcho-communism can exist within anarcho-capitalism, but not the other way around.
Of course anarcho-communism can exist in an an-cap framework! A family for example is a totally communist structure.
However I'm not sure how would anarcho-communism even work. Here is a very good article about it. http://attackthesystem.com/free-market-anarcho-communism/
However I'm not sure he presents the contrarguments well.
I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why? And where is this land that is unowned, unused, or can be traced through a succession of abandonement and/or trade, without conquestive claims to "property" in the middle?
We can go on all day about guys in the desert, or Cicero the slum lord, etc. But the fact is, if a property claimant leverages his title against the welfare of the common people, they will react, often with violence. You can call this coercion, or aggression. It doesn't matter. It will happen, because any claims to property, even "private property," is social in nature. As such, it must be utiltitarian to society.
(If it's going to f up the thread, plz don't answer. I'm not looking to get into a flame war with certain posters.)
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Laotzu del Zinn: I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why?
I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why?
Don't worry, we don't have to get into a flame war, but seeing as you haven't defined what you mean by "legitimate", there really is no way for anyone to know what you are trying to say. You might as well be saying:
"I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is blabalsdfaopsgha;ljrgal;fjs... but why?"
Well, until we know what that jumble of letters means, we really have no idea what you are trying to say.
gotlucky: Laotzu del Zinn: I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why? Don't worry, we don't have to get into a flame war, but seeing as you haven't defined what you mean by "legitimate", there really is no way for anyone to know what you are trying to say. You might as well be saying: "I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is blabalsdfaopsgha;ljrgal;fjs... but why?" Well, until we know what that jumble of letters means, we really have no idea what you are trying to say.
It's a tricky word, because what is legitimate to you may not be to me. Basically I mean, why should anyone respect the claim to property, even if it came from unowned, unused, and/or was traded, any more or less than if it was conquered?
So your question can be boiled down to "why should anyone respect the claim to property?"
My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society.
gotlucky: It's a tricky word, because what is legitimate to you may not be to me. Basically I mean, why should anyone respect the claim to property, even if it came from unowned, unused, and/or was traded, any more or less than if it was conquered? So your question can be boiled down to "why should anyone respect the claim to property?" My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society.
Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work.
Another extremely interesting discussion about this can be found here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/21514.aspx?PageIndex=1
Laotzu del Zinn: Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work.
To rape is make love, to conquer is to make peace... If you don't know the difference between making war (conquering) and peace, then it seems you're not able to handle even the stock answers. TL;DR answer: The stock answer still stands.
excel: Laotzu del Zinn: Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work. To rape is make love, to conquer is to make peace... If you don't know the difference between making war (conquering) and peace, then it seems you're not able to handle even the stock answers.
To rape is make love, to conquer is to make peace... If you don't know the difference between making war (conquering) and peace, then it seems you're not able to handle even the stock answers.
... this is what I'm saying about trying to discuss around here... ugh
That was my point. I asked why should anyone respect the owner's claim any more or less than a conquerer's. He responded "So your question can be boiled down to 'why should anyone respect the claim to property?'
My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society "
Ie, we should respect claims to property so that people can live in a free and peaceful society. Am I wrong in this conclusion? Why is it ME that is the one with an incoherent position when I am not the one that said we should respect a conqueror's claim to property to live in a free and peaceful society?
Except your entire bullshit argument hinges on the recognition of property rights of the conqueror and the property owner being equally conducive to a peaceful society.
Which means you believe that someone who conquers is as peaceful as someone who either homesteads or trades.
Which means you're an idiot.
Thus, you can't even handle the mises forums stock responses.
excel: Except your entire bullshit argument hinges on the recognition of property rights of the conqueror and the property owner being equally conducive to a peaceful society. Which means you believe that someone who conquers is as peaceful as someone who either homesteads or trades. Which means you're an idiot. Thus, you can't even handle the mises forums stock responses.
Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.
Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.
USA: conquered the land and created a relatively stable and peaceful society within their own borders (relatively).
Congo Free State: bought the land and created a abhorrently violent situation which quickly collapsed.
I found this absolutely hysterical and thought that it would positively contribute to this thread:
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Laotzu del Zinn: Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree. Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.
Fail.
excel: Laotzu del Zinn: Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree. Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree. Fail. I agree; property is fail.
Laotzu del Zinn:
Speechless, eh?