Political Theory

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Capitalist_Pig — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:28:09 GMT

Bump.

This topic always gets to me when I'm just sitting aound thinking. I would give my 2 cents, but it's nothing that hasn't already been said in this thread. Any recommended readings about the difference between the two would be greatly appreciated.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Autolykos — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:14:29 GMT

So is this thread done? Or has Jackson just not visited the forum since Tuesday?

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Sieben — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 03:30:18 GMT

Jackson La Rose:
So, you are saying that groups of people with homogenous ideologies would clump together and form territories in which they can exclusively adjudicate, based upon those norms...

I'm saying that people who have to interact with one another on a regular basis will find it wise to determine a well defined body of law to resolve disputes so that they don't have to resort to sporadic episodes of violence.

Jackson La Rose:
How is this different than a state?

Non aggressive, non monopolistic.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Autolykos — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:49:27 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Autolykos:
Maybe"?

Yes, maybe.

What does it depend on?

The circumstances.

What would help you to decide?

Probably how well he was doing!

I think I get it now. You're defining "resist" in terms of outcome, whereas I'm defining it in terms of intent. So for me, resistance can fail -- for you, any resistance is, by definition, successful.

In other words, neither of us is wrong, but we're using different definitions.

Jackson LaRose:
Fair enough. No one has explicitly made a contract with you to allow you to agree/disagree to their terms of habitation. If so, so what?

Well I consider it to be wrong. What more are you looking for, here? It seems like you're trying to continue with the red herring, despite being called out on it.

Jackson LaRose:
Hmm, I'd say a claim of absolute knowledge based upon faith in some method of qualification.

Are you skeptical even of empirical observations? :P

Jackson LaRose:
Can you please point out where I said that all men are angels?

I don't think you have.

Is your strawman deliberate here?

No.

From what I saw, you took my statements regarding people's innate moral instincts and the concept of natural law/order, and distorted them into a strawman along the lines of "all men are angels, yet some men are corrupting the angelic order". If I'm mistaken here, please point it out. Sometimes it's hard to see through obtuseness -- I'm making my best effort at it. ;)

Jackson LaRose:
I'd say we're close to being finished.

LOL

I didn't mean "we" in the sense of you and I directly. I was following your line of "If we stop pretending like we're the 'shining city on a hill'... then we're finished".

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:06:48 GMT

Autolykos:
Maybe"?

Yes, maybe.

What does it depend on?

The circumstances.

What would help you to decide?

Probably how well he was doing!

I was simply pointing out the nature of the situation that I and others "born into" a state are in. Asking me what I suggest we do about it (or instead) has no bearing on the veracity of my statement.

Fair enough. No one has explicitly made a contract with you to allow you to agree/disagree to their terms of habitation. If so, so what?

Out of curiosity, how do you define it?

Hmm, I'd say a claim of absolute knowledge based upon faith in some method of qualification.

Can you please point out where I said that all men are angels?

I don't think you have.

Is your strawman deliberate here?

No.

I'd say we're close to being finished.

LOL

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

I. Ryan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:56:24 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

A territorial monopoly (property) in which the controllers of said territory (the strongest faction) discriminate against and supress others (the weaker factions) via market pressure to conform to their ideology, or face retributive consequences (lawsuits, exile, death, etc.).

No, but I will try to restate it. Keep in mind that I am not confident about this argument. So don't expect solid arguments or good writing. This is just what I have been able to come up with.

An "exclusive" territorial property owner gets his power from being able to forcibly exclude other people from using his property; and an "inclusive" territorial property owner instead gets his power from being able to forcibly include other people in using his property.

First, you can force somebody to do something only if he doesn't already want to do it at least in the praxeological sense of the term. If he already wants to do it in that sense of the term, he is necessarily already doing it, which means that it is simply too late to try to force him. So, if you forcibly exclude somebody from using your property, that means that he wanted to use it, but you forcibly prevented him; and, if you physically include somebody in using your property, that means that he didn't want to use it, but you forcibly made him.

Which means that an exclusive territorial property owner gets his power from the facts that at least particular ways of using his property is attractive to other people, and he can choose whether to help them out or not, by letting them use it, but an inclusive territorial property owner instead gets his power from the facts that at least particular ways of using his property is unattractive to other people, and he can choose whether to screw them over or not, by forcing them to use it or not.

A state is both; and the kind of property that most people here want is just exclusive. A state doesn't just threaten to throw you off their property, but also threatens to make you use their property in a way which you probably don't want, such as being thrown in one of their prisons and so on. But the kind of property which people here envision only means that the property owner can threaten to throw people off their property. If the person values doing A on their property more than being thrown off, they stay; and, if the person values doing A on their property less than being thrown off, they leave.

So at least one of the problems is that the people making up the state are not only exclusive, but also inclusive property owners. But somebody with the power to be an exclusive property owner probably also has the power to be an inclusive property owner; so how can we expect somebody to just remain exclusive, wouldn't somebody with the power to exclude just start including? Well, the whole argument of anarcho-capitalism is as I said that it is always the incentive for any of the "normal people" to just remain an exclusive territorial property owner, and not become also an inclusive property owner, and the "normal people" have to be the majority for there to even be the society, so it is usually the incentive to just stay being an exclusive property owner.

Those arguments include the calculation problem, the knowledge problem, and so on. I can't explain those very well; so I will just say that being an inclusive property owner is like being a central planner.

Otherwise, I wonder whether there is anything to the argument that the difference is just whether they justly "homesteaded" or not. My first thought is that, though my argument doesn't account for that, it is all that there is, because consider this situation. Imagine that you live on a farm, and then I decide that it is mine, and I have the superior power to exclude you from it. I am being an exclusive territorial property owner in that example, because I never even mentioned how people acquire property. So why couldn't I just acquire it through merely deciding that it is mine? Well, I could do that; but my guess is that the property demarcations simply come about based on how people decide to use their power. Yes, somebody could just decide that your farm is theirs, and exclude you from it, while still being just an exclusive property owner; but that wouldn't happen in a developed society, because they simply wouldn't have the power to do that, because other people, who don't want their property to become insecure, fight for the security of property as a rule.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Autolykos — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:26:15 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Me personally? I dunno, maybe.

"Maybe"? What does it depend on? What would help you to decide?

Jackson LaRose:
OK, what do you suggest we do? Exile babies outside the city walls until they can explicitly agree to the terms of the state?

Your question is a red herring. I was simply pointing out the nature of the situation that I and others "born into" a state are in. Asking me what I suggest we do about it (or instead) has no bearing on the veracity of my statement.

Jackson LaRose:
It's just not every day I run into someone who has independently concluded that "truth" is accepted as a matter of faith.

Well, I think that depends on how one defines "truth". Out of curiosity, how do you define it?

Jackson LaRose:
So, you think that all (most?) people have an inate sense of morality that is somehow tharted by an organization made up of people? Confusing.

Can you please point out where I said that all men are angels? Is your strawman deliberate here?

Jackson LaRose:
I would disagree with this, at least with a nation the size of the US, with a national myth such as the US has. Once we have stopped pretending to be the "shining city on the hill", the paragon of Humanist virtue, we are finished.

I'd say we're close to being finished.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:03:32 GMT

I. Ryan:
Of course.

You seem to be describing the following:

A territorial monopoly (property) in which the controllers of said territory (the strongest faction) discriminate against and supress others (the weaker factions) via market pressure to conform to their ideology, or face retributive consequences (lawsuits, exile, death, etc.).

How is this different than the state?

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

I. Ryan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:56:52 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Usually, as long as the majority ("normal people") can successfully supress the minority (those with high time preferences or the "insane").

Of course, which explains why I brought this up:

I. Ryan:

[N]othing less significant than whether there can even be a society depends on people like that being the minority.

We live in a society, which means the majority are the "normal people".

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:49:28 GMT

I. Ryan:
The boldfaced part is where I explained where it breaks down.

Oh, OK.

I was simply correcting your question, changing the always into usually.

Usually, as long as the majority ("normal people") can successfully supress the minority (those with high time preferences or the "insane").

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:44:55 GMT

Sieben:
People who object to anarchy usually just think there are no precedents or legal background, and everything is just up to everyone to decide. Maybe it was like that at the dawn of mankind, but most historical anarchies had pre-existing polycentric legal systems, that while not perfectly libertarian, provided expedient dispute resolution and protection of property rights.

So, my answer is that an anarchist society would quickly decide what counts as illegal, so we won't have to make spur of the moment, individual judgements on when someone is breaking the law.

So, you are saying that groups of people with homogenous ideologies would clump together and form territories in which they can exclusively adjudicate, based upon those norms...

How is this different than a state?

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

I. Ryan — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:34:30 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Where?

In here:

I. Ryan:

I already said that I didn't mean that they would mean that it would always be more advantageous to be a non-state property owner, than to be a state property owner, because you could have a high enough time preference, a really anti-social ultimate desire, and so on, which would make it more advantageous to you to be a state property owner. But nothing less than whether society can exist depends on people like that always being the minority.

The boldfaced part is where I explained where it breaks down.

Jackson LaRose:

OK, but why does this matter?

Because you said this:

Jackson LaRose:

What axiom proves that it would always be more advantageous to follow property rights and the NAP?

I was simply correcting your question, changing the always into usually.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Sieben — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:34:00 GMT

People who object to anarchy usually just think there are no precedents or legal background, and everything is just up to everyone to decide. Maybe it was like that at the dawn of mankind, but most historical anarchies had pre-existing polycentric legal systems, that while not perfectly libertarian, provided expedient dispute resolution and protection of property rights.

So, my answer is that an anarchist society would quickly decide what counts as illegal, so we won't have to make spur of the moment, individual judgements on when someone is breaking the law.

But if I were alone in the woods and someone started doing something unjust to me, I would try to reason with them. Just because I think I have a right to defend myself doesn't mean violence can't be barbaric and costly.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:31:50 GMT

Autolykos:
Would you consider it a form of resistance if I tried to convince the rest of the household that I was right?

Me personally? I dunno, maybe.

Being "born into" a certain state, as I have, I've had no choice as to whether to agree to it to begin with. Nowhere did I explicitly sign or otherwise give my agreement or consent to anything that even had a "We reserve the right to change the terms whenever we like" clause.

OK, what do you suggest we do? Exile babies outside the city walls until they can explicitly agree to the terms of the state?

Why are you impressed?

It's just not every day I run into someone who has independently concluded that "truth" is accepted as a matter of faith.

To put it another way: from what I can tell, people have an instinctual basis for what they see as aggression. You could call this "natural law" or (perhaps more preferably) "natural order". My thinking is that the state interferes with natural order, and that this interference can never be a good thing. However, that doesn't mean natural order is "perfect" -- only that there can be nothing really "better".

So, you think that all (most?) people have an inate sense of morality that is somehow tharted by an organization made up of people? Confusing.

At some point, the costs of holding its subjects' explicitly captive will be seen as greater than the costs of continuing to let them leave freely.

I would disagree with this, at least with a nation the size of the US, with a national myth such as the US has. Once we have stopped pretending to be the "shining city on the hill", the paragon of Humanist virtue, we are finished.

Re: What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:17:22 GMT

Sieben:
I thought most libertarians agreed that aggression is the initiation of force. So, self defense doesn't count as aggression. But stabbing or stealing from innocent people does.

So you are relying on a moral justification of force, when you consider it "self-defense". How would you go about dealing with those who have acted martially in a (what you consider) "unjust" fashion?