Political Theory

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Maurizio Colucci — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:26:05 GMT

Why do humans not compete to protect farm animals from predators in exchange for milk/eggs in a mutually beneficial manner? Why is it that they instead compete to KILL the farm animals, AND take their milk/eggs?

Because being parasitic sometimes pays. What's surprising about that? That's why parasites exists. Your question is like asking why parasites exists. Do you think something interesting follows from the fact that parasites exist in this world?

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Maurizio Colucci — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:22:08 GMT

aervew wrote:

in order to trade ... property rights must exist.

I am not sure what you mean. Of course trade arose naturally because two producers found it more convenient to trade instead of fighting. Fighting is dangerous; it can get you killed. The first two traders (they must have existed of course) did it for that reason. Where is the circularity?

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Autolykos — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:49:17 GMT

Still trying to peddle this stuff, ~~xarthaz~~ aervew?

aervew:
Why do humans not compete to protect farm animals from predators in exchange for milk/eggs in a mutually beneficial manner? Why is it that they instead compete to KILL the farm animals, AND take their milk/eggs? After all, its not a monopoly, there are plenty of farming agencies. So the farming agencies that act nicer towards their cattle and respect their liberty should be more profitable

I wasn't going to respond to this, but I noticed just how completely non-analogous it is to business. Farm animals aren't customers, you see.

aervew:
Notice how the would-be anarchist supporters, time and time again, employ the same circular fallacy to support their view. It is delusional, utopian, and yes, no better than what the leftist anarchist economic ideas propose to exist.

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate the circularity.

aervew:
Yet the would-be supporters of private security already assume its existance before the exchange of money for safety.

How can anything be exchanged before the concept of property or (at least) mere possession?

As I see it, the concept of property concerns possession that is seen as legitimate. Property is also an emergent concept. But most property norms emerged a long, long time ago. Why do you presume that, in the absence of Leviathan, that the concept of property would immediately and necessarily vanish?

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Wheylous — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 04:40:19 GMT

1) We have a derived concept of justice: property. Any institution we create to enforce this concept is not what actually gives us the right. It is simply a practicality to increase the probability of the right being respected.

2) "Circular reasoning" solved: the first property insurance company was free. Bam. They "created" property and then people started paying them. It's like the concept of borrowing to start a business (note that this answer solves your problem within your own framework which is really weird).

Alternatively, there was a contract between A and B so that if B protected what A produced, A would pay B.

3) You can trade without property rights, so the company could be paid without any property existing. The most basic payment you can provide is your time (hence, producing something and giving it to the protection company is a trade which "starts" your weird system).

4) Self-ownership is a property right. Do you mean we do not own ourselves until someone protects us?

5) Currently, under the state, eminent domain essentially ensures us no property rights. Does this mean we do not have the rights at all?

6) I could see the point you are trying to make if you meant "without a society to enforce your rights, they are practically meaningless", but that is not what you are saying.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

hashem — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:49:01 GMT

The OP had absolutely nothing to do with debunking anarchy, so I pulled the first sentence:

aervew:
Why do humans not compete to protect farm animals from predators in exchange for milk/eggs in a mutually beneficial manner?

1. Whatever they're doing is, to them, more profitable.

2. Government intervention is heavily influences the decisions of farmers.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Porco Rosso — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:57:52 GMT

"In order for there to be a parasite, there must be a host on which it can feed. It cannot be the source of its host. There has to have been productivity before someone stole it."

This. You say the anarchist is circular, OP, while your own argument puts the cart before the horse in the worst and most naive way.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

James — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:56:15 GMT

In order for there to be a parasite, there must be a host on which it can feed. It cannot be the source of its host. There has to have been productivity before someone stole it.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

aervew — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:42:08 GMT

Property rights in the context i was talking about, come from enforcement of property: in order to trade, which is a precondition of private security companies, property rights must exist. so how do they come to existance? This is where the circular argument is.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

James — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:12:08 GMT

There are private security companies. The source of property rights is a desire for property rights. OP debunked.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Porco Rosso — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:25:10 GMT

"After all, exchange is a subcategory of property, one of the possibilities of how to use property"

People can acquire property without force and without money.

Re: Anarchy Debunked

Wheylous — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:16:46 GMT

the industry of private security, which would be the source of property rights

Eh?

Anarchy Debunked

aervew — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:06:18 GMT

Why do humans not compete to protect farm animals from predators in exchange for milk/eggs in a mutually beneficial manner? Why is it that they instead compete to KILL the farm animals, AND take their milk/eggs? After all, its not a monopoly, there are plenty of farming agencies. So the farming agencies that act nicer towards their cattle and respect their liberty should be more profitable

In other business acting more according to customer preferences increases revenue, all other things being equal. In an exchange of money for life however opposite is case.

Exchanges (including exchange of money for safety) assume existance of property rights. After all, exchange is a subcategory of property, one of the possibilities of how to use property. Yet the would-be supporters of private security already assume its existance before the exchange of money for safety. As such, the argument is circular, it does not provide the answer of where the property rights for exchange are to come from if the industry of private security, which would be the source of property rights, is itself dependent on the rights existing to function in a non predatory manner.

The realist answer? Nowhere. Only the predator can establish property rights by virtue of his ability to enforce them. This is the non-circular, concrete and consistent answer to the problem of providing security. Make no mistake, it is not security from the predator, but merely a perverse existance slavery for liberty.

Same idea presented by other posters:
https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18899.aspx?PageIndex=1
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18788.aspx?PageIndex=1

Notice how the would-be anarchist supporters, time and time again, employ the same circular fallacy to support their view. It is delusional, utopian, and yes, no better than what the leftist anarchist economic ideas propose to exist.