Emergence Anarcho-Capitalism

Reply

Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 10:34 AM

rated by 0 users

I haven't had the time to read the whole debate you have posted on here quite recently, but I want to state my opinion on national armies:

While the police force is an individual-targeted institution (as in I hire the policeman), an army is a collective to "defend the nation" which again creates a state acting in the "common good" instead of the "individual good." Hence, I believe that even in a minarchist government, the government should not create an army. Instead, it should be private. This makes armies quite a bit easier to handle than the court system (in terms of converting from minarchy to AnCap) because as long as the army gets funding, it runs, etc. In general, an army is collective, and since the government should not do anything collective that denies individual liberty, armies are not a function of a minarchist state.

Reply

Anenome replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 12:30 PM

rated by 0 users

Wheylous:

While the police force is an individual-targeted institution (as in I hire the policeman), an army is a collective to "defend the nation" which again creates a state acting in the "common good" instead of the "individual good."

I tend to think of an army more as an organization than a collective. And the nature of war is such that each soldier acts in THEIR individual good, because they don't want to be killed :P

Wheylous:

Hence, I believe that even in a minarchist government, the government should not create an army. Instead, it should be private.

What if the monopoly was taken out. You allow private armies, you allow city-state armies (national guard equiv), you certainly allow privately held weapons, but I still see this need for a professional army for the more complex parts of warfare:

For instance, an airforce. Million dollar aircraft flown by professional pilots. The private equivalent is... what? A professional army historically has continually trumped a citizen army. This was as true in Egypt as it was in Sparta. Athens did not have a standing army but did have hoplites (slaves) to fight for them which the Spartans did not (the Spartans still had slaves, but did not employ them to fight, iirc).

What the Athenians did have was organization and technology. One of the most interesting facts of Greek history is how Athens handled the Persian threat. At first the city-states pooled their money and sent it to Athens to build a powerful navy. It worked, the Persian threat was averted in time. But soon that yearly payment for the war effort went from voluntary to considered tribute, and the Athenians used the war power they'd gained to now extract these payments from its sister-cities, turning into a despot.

Without a professional army under the rule of law, any mincap society would be vulnerable to the same turn of events, of a private army growing huge in order to counter a threat and then having the might to take over that same society as it pleased. So, I'm not so sure about this suggestion.

Wheylous:

In general, an army is collective, and since the government should not do anything collective that denies individual liberty, armies are not a function of a minarchist state.

A minarchist can allow a collectively-run organization to exist. I think you're importing that idea that the gov itself shouldn't be collective to what sorts of organizations can now run within the society, of which the military need be only one. Personally, I'm not as wary of collectivism as I am of coercion. If those in the society's army are there of free will and under contract, then I have no problem with it. They know what they signed up for.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 1:02 PM

rated by 0 users

You allow private armies, you allow city-state armies (national guard equiv), you certainly allow privately held weapons, but I still see this need for a professional army for the more complex parts of warfare

Yes, private armies. The idea is: if an army would exist in a democracy, it would exist without democracy. If people realize the need for an army, they will come together to create an army with the funds society deems necessary.

A minarchist can allow a collectively-run organization to exist.

Yes, of course. Yet not a compulsory one. A private army is dandy, yet not a public one which EVERYONE must support.

As to the corruption issue:

You are viewing this through a statist capitalist viewpoint where capitalism has lost its teeth and the people are helpless. There would of course be safety measures. For example, you can have the bank account of the army be transparent and fluid, with an individual able to withdraw his money from the army at any time. There can be safeguards to prevent misuse. You simply do not see them because so much of the protection has been offered for free.

Note also that the state army itself may become too large. Plus, with private armies, there might be competing armies, and no army in its right mind would want to have to fight the others.

Reply

Anenome replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 1:18 PM

rated by 0 users

I'll have to think more on that, but it seems compelling, and more likely in the future than now.

I still have trouble imagining how a private jet owner is going to stand up to a foreign professional fighter pilot >_>

When it's something like handling nuclear weapons, I think we need a state mechanism where everyone in the society can have a say...

Inasmuch as protecting society from inward aggressors is the proper function of government, I'm still leaning towards protection from outward aggressors being a proper function as well.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 1:22 PM

rated by 0 users

Anemone:

I would think jurisdiction would always be over some kind of property. Open to elucidation on the concept tho.

Do you think law concerns states (i.e. conditions) or actions? I would say that, since I see law as concerning actions, and only people can act, law necessarily concerns people. Hence jurisdiction - applicability of law - is always over people initially and over property only by extension.

Anemone:

Sure. I don't have a real issue with the idea of competing private law enforcement, apart from that we've never really seen it done in the real world. But I'd like to.

If a man defends his home and himself (if not also his family) from an intruder, would you say that he's enforced any law? If so, would you say that his enforcement of the law was private?

What about security guards, bodyguards, and the like?

Anemone:

What benefit would be gained by allowing people to escape law within the city?

I think you're thinking that a city in my ideal state would be something like state property when I don't agree it would be. I would have the city initially own by the guy who bought that land and began setting it up as a city and selling parts to people. Anything not bought/leased by others belongs to him. That's why you must contract to specific laws before entering the city. Thus, no one in the city is able to escape the law, they're there only on condition of abiding by it. This further allows grand competition between cities for the best legal provisions. And since it's a city on the water/space, everything floats/flies, if you don't like one jurisdiction it's easy enough to sale to a new one, unlike on land where homes are fixed and moving carries a high cost comparatively.

Okay, let's work this out step by step. At first, there's an area of land, which we'll call A, which is owned by one person, who we'll call Smith. Then Smith starts to invite people to buy or rent pieces of his land. Before entering (i.e. setting foot onto) his land, Smith asks each person to contract to specific laws. Let's say that everyone rents land from Smith except for one individual, Jones, who buys a piece of Smith's land outright. If Smith's law has jurisdiction over Smith's land, then that's the same as saying Smith's law has initial jurisdiction over A. Let's call B the area of land that Jones buys from Smith. Obviously, B < A. Now if Jones now owns B, Smith cannot also own B. Therefore, Smith only owns A - B at this point, and his law has jurisdiction only over A - B. Make sense?

With this in mind, it seems to me that you're referring to all of A as "the city", which would necessarily include Jones' land after he buys it from Smith. But to say that the law necessarily applies to "the city" is a contradiction, because if Jones is on the land that he now owns, he's not on the land that Smith owns. Since the contract presumably applied to Smith's land and not A specifically, to say that Jones is still beholden to Smith's law on his own land is contradictory.

Anemone:

Correct. To form your own state you would have to leave the jurisdiction / territory of the existing state. Anyting else would constitute two bodies of criminal law in the same place, which is not going to work. However, this is only true at the city level. The overarching federal law would leave societal experimentation and general law enforcement to the city-states.

I envision a world where people could setup just about any kind of state they want, as long as they respect basic rights. You want Sharia--fine, but if you sentence someone to death for changing religions they must go willingly to the gallows. If they try to flee you have no right to enforce it on them for something not protected by the federal level (converting from islam in this case).

You want an anarchist state where there's no organization at all? Easy enough to set up. Group all like-minded's together on private property, or divide it between yourselves, and no one can set up jurisdiction over you. Which is just about the only way an anarchist region is going to practically come into existence.

Your hypothetical federal government would have jurisdiction over this "anarchist state", wouldn't it? Hence it wouldn't actually be an area of anarchy (I consider "anarchist state" to be an oxymoron and I have no idea how you can do otherwise).

Anemone:

Lastly, there's on more thing, civil law may be competitive under a monopolistic criminal law, allowing multiple bodies of civil law in the same region. However, it may also be that simply abiding by contract could achieve the same end as what civil law and courts aims at so it may be entirely unecessary.

How are you defining "criminal law" versus "civil law"?

Anemone:

That's an interesting point I'll have to think about some more. Since I envision the state hierarchy as something one buys into willingly in order to enter an area owned by another (basically contracting to enter), the terms of ending that contract would be spelled out in advance and they'd know what they were getting into. Thus the contract would likely include provisions that should one no longer agree to willingly abide by the law one's recourse is to leave, not merely drop out and consider themselves immune.

This is pretty much common sense when it comes to entering someone else's home or other property, isn't it? Basically anarcho-capitalists such as myself see (what we call) the state as not only disrespecting property ownership on a systematic basis, but also being generally allowed to do so.

Anemone:

Besides which, the federal level is charged with protecting basic rights, meaning one need not be in or of the state to be protected not prosecuted for such a crime. We can't only prosecute non-citizens for, let's say, murder. Murder is murder whether you are a citizen or not and you can be held.

So, what effectively would leaving the state mean for someone within such a minarch society? You have no obligations to the state, no taxes, no fees. And you can still be prosecuted for any crimes you commit.

Okay, I think we're starting to converge on this issue. But let me ask you: who gets to define what is a crime and what isn't?

Anemone:

This philosophic reach from jurisdictional coverage to so-called control seems to be a common conceptual equivocation among anarchists... or maybe it's just that I've seen it said so many times lately. But I don't see it. It amounts to a logical leap. Where exactly is the loss of control of land, of ownership? Let's say it was possible to set up his own state within the bounds of another city. I actually see no problem with that. He'd just draw up a new body of law, and contract with people coming onto his land, and could be a law to himself. Now that I've considered it, it would be perfectly possible.

I had assumed that you believed otherwise - that is, the seceding landowner would not be allowed to draw up a new body of law (as you put it).

Anemone:

That doesn't mean he could declare murder to be legal, etc. Basic rights don't change, so he wouldn't be gaining anything. Except people probably wouldn't want to come visit anymore cause he sounds like a crackpot :P Sure, by all means, setup your own criminal-law state within another jurisdiction. I agree now. Long as there's defined borders between that jurisdiction and another.

Property ownership involves defined borders, doesn't it?

However, I think we're each using "law" in a different sense. What you call "basic rights" corresponds entirely to my conception of "law", but it's only a subset of your conception. You also include under "law" any/all contractual arrangements (that presumably don't violate the "basic rights"). Maybe a more useful terminology for our purposes would be "public law" for referring to what you've called "basic rights" and "private law" for referring to the contractual arrangements. The only remaining question, as I see it, is the nature of "public law".

Anemone:

But you'd probably say, well, aren't I keep him still under the federal system? Yes, I am. But there's great virtue in that in the long run. One man cannot provide his own defense or deal effectively with continent-scale issues and crises. Would city-states be allowed to choose a federal government or opt out completely. I don't see why not.

What you call "the federal system" is what I'd call "natural morality". I don't think it takes the establishment of some federal government for nearly all people to consider killing, injuring, attacking, taking property, or damaging/destroying property to be wrong when neither defensive or consensual. The vast majority of people don't steal, murder, etc. because there are written laws proscribing punishments for people who are considered to have done such things.

On the other hand, like I mentioned above, if a man enters a city-state and buys some land within it, he's no longer part of the city-state. In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to even talk about "city-states" when they're simply amalgamations of privately-owned land.

Anemone:

Then I'd form my own gov. Which is why I framed it in the context of my ideal state.

But what about all those people in the world whose "natural rights" are being violated? How will they be helped?

Anemone:

How does the slave break such a contract when they're locked in a prison unable to communicate with the outside world. What guarantee do you have that all those in a society would respect seld-ownership and NAP. You're coming off rather naive here.

I think you read too much into what I wrote. Of course there's no guarantee that all those in a society would respect self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Likewise, there's no guarantee that all those in a society will respect whatever "rule of law" is presumed to govern it. There is never any guarantee for anything, in the sense of absolute certainty about (some point in) the future. On the other hand, if the slave is locked in prison unable to communicate with the outside world, any contract concerning his slavery is technically irrelevant.

Anemone:

Hah, it will certainly be more likely to help the helpless if a professional police force is out trying to do just that rather than, in your words, relying on the idea that an entire society would respect NAP and self-ownership, and relying on a slave making their escape before they can be helped. You say a slave contract wouldn't be enforceable, who tells the slave-owner it's not enforceable and that he must not keep enslaving these people in an ancap society with no authority figures, no law enforcement? Polyanna.

Although it depends greatly on how you're defining "authority figure" and "law enforcement", I never said that there wouldn't be either of those things in an anarcho-capitalist society. What I said is that they wouldn't be monopolized. Again, if a man repels an intruder from his home, I'd say he legitimately exercised both authority and law enforcement. I'd also say he legitimately exercised coercion against the intruder. Such a situation is perfectly possible in an anarcho-capitalist society. To supplement this kind of personal protection, I'd imagine there'd be individuals and even businesses for hire. On the other hand, there would be individuals and businesses for hire to provide direction, guidance, and consultation in interpersonal disputes. A common term for such people is judge. Why should that be monopolized?

Anemone:

A body of law provides legal sanction for the use of coercion to stop the initiation of coercion within society. This is a very, very basic principle. To not understand the utility and purpose of a body of law in a society just baffles me. To further suggest a society might be safer without one is even more astounding.

Where did I make that suggestion? I don't see where I ever did.

Anemone:

We know all societies will have criminals, what's holding back the criminal element in ancap societies? Each individual? How does an individual deal with organized criminals? Only an organization purposed with upholding justice can do so.

Everyone has the physical potential to murder, assault, steal, vandalize, etc. The vast majority of people hold themselves back from doing so the vast majority of the time. There are no decrees necessary to hold those people in check, because they almost always do it themselves. So the question is what to do when they don't. That's what I consider the proper place for law.

Anemone:

In other words, would they need to be paid. Sure.

Right. So that means either they're paid by the people who hire them, or they're allowed to take what they want from people. I know which one we both agree with (the former), so that's really a moot point. But my intention here was to hopefully dissuade you from believing that any/all enforcers of justice would do so simply out of the goodness of their hearts. That would certainly be naive. :P

Anemone:

If he does have a personal stake in a particular criminal conflict he should recuse himself. Impersonal justice is what law enforcement requires so that objectivity can be as closely attained as possible.

I agree that he should recuse himself, but will he? Since there's never any certainty about the future, the next best thing is to provide incentives that hopefully (or can be reasonably expected to, given precedence) outweigh the benefits he sees from doing otherwise.

Anemone:

As I said, I'm open to the idea of competing law enforcement orgs. It's competing law that is impossible within one jurisdiction.

The more limited law is, I think the broader its jurisdiction can be - if that makes sense.

Anemone:

I'd still like to see you prove that conceptually with something like a syllogistic chain of reasoning instead of just contuinually asserting it :P

Well, given what you've written elsewhere, it seems like I was largely wrong about you believing that.

Anemone:

Sure. He'd be free to setup his own jurisdiction. However, if he violated basic rights of others he'd be ethically invadeable, as would anyone else.

So essentially you already believe in self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. I think that's good. Just keep in mind that, if you believe in them, that means you consider them to be applicable to everyone. In other words, the "jursdiction" of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle is over all humans equally.

Anemone:

Legitimate or not, it's still a fact or reality; a person controls themselves. Control is an essential characteristic of ownership. Thus, to own one's self is to control oneself, and one controls one's self by nature. When the fact of self-direction is recognized by law, we recognize self-ownership.

If by "control" you mean direct physical control, then I'd say that control is not an essential characteristic of ownership. A person can own a house and not live in it, for example. He can even rent it out to someone else. Is he controlling the house while he's not living in it and someone else is? In a direct physical sense, hardly.

On the other hand, I don't see how there can be ownership without legitimacy. Yes, it's a fact of reality that a person controls himself, but whether that control is legitimate or not is no fact at all.

Anemone:

Conflicts with who or what. And why do they result in the fewest conflicts? Because they are recognizing facts of reality.

Conflicts between/among people, of course. I wouldn't call it "recognizing facts of reality", though - I'd call it "most accommodating of human nature".

Anemone:

Not completely free, sure, as it is measured along a continuum.

"Free" can be defined in an all-or-nothing sense, right?

Anemone:

Definitions merely use words to denote an existing phenomena.

Here we differ in two ways. One, I consider a definition to explain what a single word refers to. Two, I hardly consider definitions to be bound to existing phenomena. I can coin a word, "harblegarble", and define it as "a purple one-eyed unicorn".

Anemone:

Then explain to me, doesn't an ancap society reject a state-backed hierarchy that does this? Let's say you had a state that did nothing but run a law enforcement agency designed to do exactly this. It wouldn't be perfect, nothing is, but it would for the most part do its just. 1. wouldn't that be acceptable to you based on your agreement of how coercion can be rightly used here, and 2. doesn't that contradict the ancap assertion that all state hierarchy is irredeemable?

So the state would be the law-enforcement agency. Would it allow competitors? If not, then I'd consider its use of coercion against would-be competitors to be non-defensive and thus immoral.

Anemone:

But I'm not asserting that. While criminal law qua law must have a monopoly in its jurisdiction I don't consider the enforcement mechanism to require the same monopoly.

Okay. So I can move on to the issue of what you call "criminal law".

Anemone:

But you attacked the sign, not the definition. When we say a rose by any other name is still a rose--that amounts to me argument. You seemed to be saying the definition is arbitrary because the word we use is abritrary--I cannot agree to that. The definition is essential, the word, the signifier used to signify that concept or thing is not essential.

I didn't attack anything. To go along with your Shakespearean analogy, I merely pointed out that, if you call a rose a bumblebee, it would smell as sweet. You don't have to call it by the name "rose".

But it's clear to me now that our real dispute here is (forgive me) over what each of us calls a "definition". You consider definitions to be attached to concepts, whereas I consider them to be attached to words. That's why I consider the phrase "the definition of a concept" to be nonsensical - at least in my own semantics.

Anemone:

Well, I'm certainly not trying to rise to the level of platonic forms, only trying to assert that attacking the state for a characteristic that is nonessential to the concept and function of the state is not really an attack on the state, but on that nonessential characteristic. To conflate the two is to make an error of reasoning.

I still see you as trying to sneak in the assertion that the concept that you call by the name "state" is the only possible concept that that name can be applied to. If I or anyone else is attacking a characteristic that is nonessential to your concept of "state", then 1) he's attacking a different concept of "state" and 2) he probably doesn't fully understand your concept of "state". A lot of what I feel like I've been doing in our exchange is figuring out exactly what you mean in terms that I can understand - if that makes sense.

Anemone:

I'm sure that's true. I'm sure they're taking a more historical look at the state. But philosophically the state need not be what they attack it for. Thus, their reasoning about it may not be entirely consistent nor applicable.

Right, it may not be entirely consistent nor applicable to your (different) concept of "state". Neither your concept of "state" or theirs is right/wrong - they're simply different from one another.

Anemone:

The challenge is to find the essential characteristics of a thing. Four legs is not essential, so it would be a poor definition. I think you'll find in the field of defining that finding a definition that subsumes all forms and excludes nonessentials is the main difficulty and object. That doesn't mean there's a search for "platonic tableness" only that a definition seeks to entirely contain its subject while leaving out the nonessentials.

I'm assuming you really mean "the essential characteristics of a thing or concept" in the above. :P However, I don't see how defining "table" as "a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by four legs" contains anything that's necessarily non-essential. Maybe you see the four-legs requirement as non-essential, but that doesn't mean it is non-essential. Do you see what I'm saying? It seems like what you're arguing is the same as arguing that me defining "table" that way is wrong because it doesn't match your definition of "table". That of course begs the question: logically speaking, do they have to match?

Anemone:

Yes, yes. Would they be allowed to setup their own city-state within another one? Yes. I doubt it would happen much in practice tho.

Whether it would happen much (or at all) in practice is irrelevant.

Anemone:

A founding document must provide procedures for its own modification. Since it is the highest law of the land, how do you suppose it can be changed if it itself states that it cannot be changed? You mean the guys in charge could break the law and change it? o_O

I mean exactly that. What would necessarily stop them?

Anemone:

Okay, I get it, you haven't read the rest of the thread where I continuall agree with another poster that enforcement need not be monopolized :P Only the body of law itself.

Yeah, sorry. Like I said, I have a lot of catching up to do in this thread. :P

Anemone:

If the founders set up the document correctly then that alone can prevent the state from becoming despotic. By this I mean things like limiting gov powers, abilities, writing in proper basic rights, and things like a provision guaranteeing a separation of economy and state, etc. If the state is being lawfully conducted, these provisions will prevent a lot of tyranny from beginning at all. Especially if the founding document firewalls particular provisions from being changed at all.

Again, those firewalls could be removed. Otherwise, what do you think would ensure that the state is being lawfully conducted?

Anemone:

That function is provided by the bill of rights and enforced by the courts and the executive branch ostensibly, in our society.

You're now talking about the United States? In that case, keep in mind that all branches of the US federal government are paid out of the same purse.

Anemone:

The idea of "nation of laws, not of mean" is meant to be understood as a nation where the law is conducted by written statute and not by the whims or words of rulers. I'm surprised you didn't read that in for that's its common understanding.

Written statutes can be dictated by the whims or words of rulers, such as a majority of Congressmen.

Anemone:

Hell no! LOL. I mean things like separation of economy and state. Who do you think I am? Right to healthcare, I'll fight you first! Step outside! :P

That's not what I meant. You talked about the notion of "new legal concepts" being useful. You didn't qualify "new legal concepts". If a person considers a "right to healthcare" to be a "new new legal concept" that's useful, what's to stop them?

Anemone:

That's a fake right, a non-right. There cannot be such a thing as a right to healthcare, as that would not be a right that would be a privilege and amount to the idea that a doctor owes people his services without compensation, which is de fact slavery.

One of the most evil things I've ever heard of is what happened when Brussels instituted national healthcare. The doctors tried to flee to country. Many made it out, but when the establishment realized what was happening they actually drafted the doctors into the army to prevent them from leaving. Such is no less than tyranny.

Well, if you define "right" as "something granted to people by the government", as you seem to do, then a "right to healthcare" can certainly exist. I agree with you that it's tyrannical, but my point stands nonetheless.

Anemone:

We could do it on the water. I'm building out the concept now. What's needed is economic incentive. You need a medium size company that needs factory space and can live with lots of automation. Normally they'd pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to rent factory space for a year, not to mention fees, regulations, etc.

So, why not invest that money instead in a floating factory built inside a large-size tanker ship, and kept in international water. You live rent free, you boat people out a week at a time if need be, or run it remotely. Should be immediately profitable. From there you build more factories which creates a market for both transportation and local services and entertainment. Soon you can build some seasteading lillypads for permanent residents or those tired of boating back all the time, and it really just snowballs from there.

Would you store my boat on board in case I decide I've had enough?

Anemone:

In comparison to capitalism, yes I can.

How so?

Anemone:

I disagree. If the document disallows all changes to section 1 of the document, and that provision and rules for changing the document is in section 1, how would it be legal to change those rules? It would not be at all. I can't believe you don't see that. It's very much like writing an algorithm. In fact, I've been looking into a way to embody law in algorithmic form rather than statute but it's just something I'm playing with right now...

On the one hand, it may not matter whether it's legal. People in the US federal government do things that are illegal, even unconstitutional, all the time. But on the other hand, just because the rules for changing Section 1 are inside section doesn't mean a new section can't be added which is said to supersede Section 1. And finally, people aren't computers or robots. They don't just automatically obey written rules just because they happen to exist.

Anemone:

Yes. They must agree / contract to the existing laws just to enter the territory.

And when the territory they're on becomes their territory, those laws no longer apply on that territory, right? They may still apply to the territory that isn't theirs, but that's beside the point.

Anemone:

Depends on what they agreed to upon entering. Most likely yes. At the least I'd think they could easily float away their property.

I don't know why you answered my question strictly in terms of your floating sea-city idea. My question contained the word "land", didn't it?

Anemone:

Just because there's no financial perks to being a citizen doesn't mean you wouldn't want to be one. Just that it doesn't cost the society money to do so. Primarily you need a justice system to not live in fear continually and worry about the strong man in society ready to rob you.

What's the point of being a citizen if there are no added benefits, advantages, or "perks" to being one? I mean, even if citizens each received a t-shirt that said "I Became a Citizen of Tankeria and All I Got Was This Stupid T-Shirt", that would be something, wouldn't it?

Anemone:

Again, there may be provision for that upon entering the society. But barring that, he'd be a law unto himself only within the property he owned / his jurisdiction. And he'd have to make other contract to his law upon entering his land.

Or he could repel them from his land, right? Because he could consider them trespassers, right? (This, of course, assumes he hasn't committed any aggression against anyone.)

Anemone:

If you must contract and agree to the laws to enter, stands to reason that if you want to break your contract on code of conduct that you must then leave. I doubt many city-states would want to deal with crackpots setting up their own justice system within their city-state which would inevitably lead to leeching the existing judicial system or patchwork judicial boundaries :P But the entire issue can be handled at the point of entering in the first place.

No, it can't - not unless the city-state owns all of the land within its borders. That's been my whole point. If someone buys land outright from the city-state, regardless of whether the city-state is owned by one person or a group of people jointly, the land that he bought cannot logically be considered still a part of the city-state in a "private-law" legal sense. (Obviously the "public law" is presumed to have jurisdiction everywhere, not just over the city-state.)

Reply

Anenome replied on Fri, Aug 12 2011 3:58 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

Do you think law concerns states (i.e. conditions) or actions?

Never really considered it, but I would say law concerns exchanges, meaning action between two people. I wouldn't use action because that means a single person alone, and law has no place in regulating the individual, only keeping justice between them. In the same way, the idea of freedom or law would mean nothing to someone stranded on a desert island, as who could possibly restrain him or violate his rights :P

Autolykos:

I would say that, since I see law as concerning actions, and only people can act, law necessarily concerns people. Hence jurisdiction - applicability of law - is always over people initially and over property only by extension.

Sure, sounds right to me. I'm not sure what regulating a state of being would even mean in practice or theory.

Autolykos:

If a man defends his home and himself (if not also his family) from an intruder, would you say that he's enforced any law? If so, would you say that his enforcement of the law was private?

What about security guards, bodyguards, and the like?

Sure, that sounds appropriate, he's enforced law and he's privately enforced it. However, as I said, not everyone's capable of their own defense all the time.

I'd allow private security. The real question is how trials are taking place. Should we have electable judges? Surely we can't have free market judges for criminal law, or can we (civil disputes it's fine, but criminal? doubt it).

Autolykos:

At first, there's an area of land, which we'll call A, which is owned by one person, who we'll call Smith. Then Smith starts to invite people to buy or rent pieces of his land. Before entering (i.e. setting foot onto) his land, Smith asks each person to contract to specific laws. Let's say that everyone rents land from Smith except for one individual, Jones, who buys a piece of Smith's land outright. If Smith's law has jurisdiction over Smith's land, then that's the same as saying Smith's law has initial jurisdiction over A. Let's call B the area of land that Jones buys from Smith. Obviously, B < A. Now if Jones now owns B, Smith cannot also own B. Therefore, Smith only owns A - B at this point, and his law has jurisdiction only over A - B. Make sense?

With this in mind, it seems to me that you're referring to all of A as "the city", which would necessarily include Jones' land after he buys it from Smith. But to say that the law necessarily applies to "the city" is a contradiction, because if Jones is on the land that he now owns, he's not on the land that Smith owns. Since the contract presumably applied to Smith's land and not A specifically, to say that Jones is still beholden to Smith's law on his own land is contradictory.

Right, but Smith still owns all public areas, such as streets, etc., which he may or may not sell, and would likely only sell if the buyers agree to continue with the city contract (or leave). I forget what this is called in terms of property but it's something like a legal attachment that comes with property. It's actually a current problem in contract theory, as if you buy a property with conditions already on it, how can those conditions ever be removed? In theory they cannot be, and that's too much power to give the sellers. Otoh, you can say if you don't like the provisions simply don't buy.

It might be more reasonable to simply require that if a person legally separates themselves from the city and continues to live within the city bounds that they must also then provide security on their property.

Autolykos:

Your hypothetical federal government would have jurisdiction over this "anarchist state", wouldn't it? Hence it wouldn't actually be an area of anarchy (I consider "anarchist state" to be an oxymoron and I have no idea how you can do otherwise).

I agree it's a weird state of being, but it's also the only way an anarchist state is likely to come into being :P

In this case we'red building a society so limited that unless we're in a state of war the anarchists shouldn't have any contact with the federal authority at all. Well, the other cases would be if the anarchists are allowing gross injustices within their territory, in which case the fed should step in to stop aggressions--which is its sole function in my state.

Autolykos:

How are you defining "criminal law" versus "civil law"?

Criminal law involves the abrogation of basic rights, theft, murder, etc. Civil disputes are those surrounding contracts and agreements and other things that don't have an ethical component: marriage / divorce (which the state should not have any part in), business and contractual disputes, etc. As in current practice, some disputes have both a civil and criminal element, which are handled separately.

It may be that any civil dispute which requires the use of force within society should go to a gov civil court which exists alongside the private courts of dispute (which would be primarily used by businesses). Thus, any dispute where one party is refusing to come to court or where you require things like attaching a bank account, etc., would need to move up to the public civil court. Even the private arbitration courts might eventually need to move up to a coercive institution. But I don't think it should have a monopoly on anything but coercion. Obviously a private and coercive court is a contradiction in terms. But since it is necessary within a functioning society it has to come from somewhere, somehow.

Autolykos:

This is pretty much common sense when it comes to entering someone else's home or other property, isn't it? Basically anarcho-capitalists such as myself see (what we call) the state as not only disrespecting property ownership on a systematic basis, but also being generally allowed to do so.

So essentially, through your questioning, it seems that my ideal city could really only be kept intact legally if everyone is leasing/renting property from the original large-scale owner. This more limited form of ownership would allow the original owner to contract leasees into a legal system while maintaining the ability to bar entry to offenders.

Autolykos:

Okay, I think we're starting to converge on this issue. But let me ask you: who gets to define what is a crime and what isn't?

:) two bodies: the founder(s) initially (one time try) and elected representatives concurrently. The founders by means of the statement of basic rights enshrined in a founding document which is essentially unchangeable. This document should be quite basic, only enshrining the most obvious and important rights. Such would prevent the fed authority from overstepping their bounds in time and growing in power as we've seen lately.

Any more fine-grained law making should be at the city-state level and made by elected representatives. But I have a number of ideas for things that could be tried. With a modern age, we could move back to direct democracy by using a web interface to allow all individuals in a society to vote on proposals.

I had another idea yesterday that perhaps elected representatives should be conflated with the law enforcement organization entirely, such that what we think of today as the equivalent of a congressman would also perform the work of a police-officer. Such would allow representatives to see the direct impact of any law that gets made/passed.

As to what kind of elected body, how, or even if, I would leave that up to each city-state. So, it's a society that allows for widescale experimentation, unlike the US-states and their silly blue sky laws and copycat constitutions.

I would think each city-state should apply for recognition as a city-state under the fed authority in order to be included under its protective umbrellas, in something like an appeal for protection from aggressors. The eventual goal being to allow cities in other countries to do the same, such that this way of life, that is Freedom, can be spread.

Such would put my society at odds with the dictatorships around the world. And that's just how I like it. It is morally permissible to invade any country aggressing against its occupants, with the intent to protect individuals against aggression. Properly constructed we could free the world.

Autolykos:

I had assumed that you believed otherwise - that is, the seceding landowner would not be allowed to draw up a new body of law (as you put it).

You convinced me :P I don't think many would like to do it, but perhaps it's permissible.

Autolykos:

Property ownership involves defined borders, doesn't it?

Always.

Autolykos:

However, I think we're each using "law" in a different sense. What you call "basic rights" corresponds entirely to my conception of "law", but it's only a subset of your conception. You also include under "law" any/all contractual arrangements (that presumably don't violate the "basic rights"). Maybe a more useful terminology for our purposes would be "public law" for referring to what you've called "basic rights" and "private law" for referring to the contractual arrangements. The only remaining question, as I see it, is the nature of "public law".

Sounds good. Except, "private law"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms. "Contractual agreement" might substitute and be more apt.

Autolykos:

What you call "the federal system" is what I'd call "natural morality". I don't think it takes the establishment of some federal government for nearly all people to consider killing, injuring, attacking, taking property, or damaging/destroying property to be wrong when neither defensive or consensual. The vast majority of people don't steal, murder, etc. because there are written laws proscribing punishments for people who are considered to have done such things.

Right, but that knowledge doesn't provide a protection against an organized enemy state.

Autolykos:

On the other hand, like I mentioned above, if a man enters a city-state and buys some land within it, he's no longer part of the city-state. In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to even talk about "city-states" when they're simply amalgamations of privately-owned land.

I consider that most property owners within one region would want to form a prevailing legal order to deal with the problem in society, specifically crime. This has virtually always happened in the history of humanity. Fighting it isn't going to work. Directing it into something useful will. Informing it with principle will.

Autolykos:

But what about all those people in the world whose "natural rights" are being violated? How will they be helped?

I answered this previously, that it's morally permissible to step into any situation where a human's rights are being aggressed by anyone and put a stop to it. This is the nature of the justice system and applies on an international basis as well.

One reason I like the idea of a state on the water is that you'd be able to float a city down to some troubled region and provide aid, support, even military-defense as needed with a base local to the problem. You'd be free to pick up those who want to leave the city for another land. This is something many around the world would love to do, to leave their situation and find a rational place to work and live in peace, but they currently have no options.

The prerequisite for helping others is to get our own damn house in order. With America's statist ambitions, we've backed ourself into a financial corner. A free state such as I propose would have no such debt problems, and the people would be more wealthy and productive than americans. Beyond that, I intend to write the ability for regions to appeal for entry, allowing them to either be moved out by willing organizations within the society or institute our legal system within their borders. Should be both very rewarding and fun to see the result of all this. Dictatorships around the world would have their brains fried.

Autolykos:

I think you read too much into what I wrote. Of course there's no guarantee that all those in a society would respect self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Likewise, there's no guarantee that all those in a society will respect whatever "rule of law" is presumed to govern it. There is never any guarantee for anything, in the sense of absolute certainty about (some point in) the future. On the other hand, if the slave is locked in prison unable to communicate with the outside world, any contract concerning his slavery is technically irrelevant.

My point is, in my society there's a professional police force (or private) able to walk into that situation and free the imprisoned, and no such ability within an anarchist society unless a citizen wants to stick his (lone) neck out. Any organized crime can prevent that from happening quite easily, but in a state which puts forth a statement of rights it must also back those rights with some enforcement.

Autolykos:

Although it depends greatly on how you're defining "authority figure" and "law enforcement", I never said that there wouldn't be either of those things in an anarcho-capitalist society. What I said is that they wouldn't be monopolized.

What body of law is there in an anarchist society? Without that, what does a police force know to enforce? What's the legal procedure of arresting someone?

Autolykos:

Again, if a man repels an intruder from his home, I'd say he legitimately exercised both authority and law enforcement. I'd also say he legitimately exercised coercion against the intruder. Such a situation is perfectly possible in an anarcho-capitalist society. To supplement this kind of personal protection, I'd imagine there'd be individuals and even businesses for hire. On the other hand, there would be individuals and businesses for hire to provide direction, guidance, and consultation in interpersonal disputes. A common term for such people is judge. Why should that be monopolized?

Right, but I still don't see in there a place where the defenseless are being protected after being overpowered. An orphan child being held as a slave, who protects him?

Autolykos:

Everyone has the physical potential to murder, assault, steal, vandalize, etc. The vast majority of people hold themselves back from doing so the vast majority of the time. There are no decrees necessary to hold those people in check, because they almost always do it themselves. So the question is what to do when they don't. That's what I consider the proper place for law.

Okay, sounds like we agree on that principle at least.

Autolykos:

my intention here was to hopefully dissuade you from believing that any/all enforcers of justice would do so simply out of the goodness of their hearts. That would certainly be naive. :P

Lol, yeah, I wouldn't be that naive.

Autolykos:

I agree that he should recuse himself, but will he? Since there's never any certainty about the future, the next best thing is to provide incentives that hopefully (or can be reasonably expected to, given precedence) outweigh the benefits he sees from doing otherwise.

Sure. It would likely be a crime to be personally involved in a conviction in some self-serving way, just as it is today.

Autolykos:

The more limited law is, I think the broader its jurisdiction can be - if that makes sense.

No, I agree. That's why I want the fed to be as limited and basic as possible, doing only one thing--enforcing basic rights. The most difficult thing is to prevent people from adding fake rights onto the tail end of that.

Autolykos:

So essentially you already believe in self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. I think that's good. Just keep in mind that, if you believe in them, that means you consider them to be applicable to everyone. In other words, the "jursdiction" of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle is over all humans equally.

Of course. It's not that I think someone loses their personal jurisdiction by joining a legal federation, but that they think they will gain something by acting corporately. If a person doesn't need to provide for their own defense, they're free to specialize in a work area. That's a more important principle than we give it credit for.

Autolykos:

If by "control" you mean direct physical control, then I'd say that control is not an essential characteristic of ownership. A person can own a house and not live in it, for example. He can even rent it out to someone else. Is he controlling the house while he's not living in it and someone else is? In a direct physical sense, hardly.

No, I don't mean only direct physical control, I mean control in every sense possible. You don't only control your arm, you also control how it may be disposed of, destroyed, sold, or given away, etc. Same with the house. If you rent it, you're maintaining title and certain rights over it. To rent it you're selling those rights to another for a set period, but you've not given them up completely. You could, in theory, rent an arm to someone else--allowing doctors to cut it off, attach it to someone else, and then reverse the procedure at some later date. We don't do that for obvious reasons but the analogy to control of the house is applicable. You own it both physically and in terms of title, but I'm glad you made me clarify that concept.

Autolykos:

On the other hand, I don't see how there can be ownership without legitimacy.

Define legitimacy in this context.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

Not completely free, sure, as it is measured along a continuum.

"Free" can be defined in an all-or-nothing sense, right?

It shouldn't be. Total physical freedom is why it's possible to hurt others. True freedom is a middle concept and applies to an entire society, meaning you're free from political / economic / interpersonal coercion. Now, total freedom is why coercion is possible, because someone can still put a gun to your head. But the state of freedom means a society that is protecting the individuals within it from aggression and initiation of coercion, and it is doing this by means of coercing the aggressors to stop aggressing. This is political freedom.

If we look at a slave owner, we might say he's free. After all no one is coercing him. But in fact he's coercing others. So he is not living in a state of freedom, but of tyranny, tyranny over others. Freedom for a society means a lack of coercion on individuals.

Because of this, as I said, freedom is a middle concept meaning free to swing your arm until it meets the end of another's nose.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

Definitions merely use words to denote an existing phenomena.

Here we differ in two ways. One, I consider a definition to explain what a single word refers to. Two, I hardly consider definitions to be bound to existing phenomena. I can coin a word, "harblegarble", and define it as "a purple one-eyed unicorn".

But you first created a new word before defining it. In this instance, the existing phenomena is the word which has no correlation to reality, but it still exists. As a word, or a thought, or a nonsense word.

However in terms of communication, the idea is to get meaning into the head of another, and words must be precisely defined for that to work. And then when we get to reasoning, logic, and political theory it is even more important.

Autolykos:

So the state would be the law-enforcement agency.

What else? That's its only ethical reason to exist. It's the only thing that I can't imagine stripping away from government due to the nature of law. Well, the state would be a law creator, a holder of jurisdiction, the enforcement could be privatized, or more likely would have a state apparatus but allow for private competitors.

Autolykos:

Would it allow competitors? If not, then I'd consider its use of coercion against would-be competitors to be non-defensive and thus immoral.

Yes.

Autolykos:

I didn't attack anything. To go along with your Shakespearean analogy, I merely pointed out that, if you call a rose a bumblebee, it would smell as sweet. You don't have to call it by the name "rose".

You don't, but that has nothing to do with the definition... color me confused.

Autolykos:

But it's clear to me now that our real dispute here is (forgive me) over what each of us calls a "definition". You consider definitions to be attached to concepts, whereas I consider them to be attached to words. That's why I consider the phrase "the definition of a concept" to be nonsensical - at least in my own semantics.

Ah. I think the definition tries to capture a concept, to capture meaning of a phenomena, thought, emotion, thing, etc. And if successful it delineates this thing from all other things. And the primary process in doing that is both stripping out nonessentials (like number of legs in a table) and building a definition which encompasses the variety of the thing or concept (such as the definition of a table as 1 or more legs).

Autolykos:

I still see you as trying to sneak in the assertion that the concept that you call by the name "state" is the only possible concept that that name can be applied to.

No, I'm really asserting that what the state's been attacked for by anarchs has, so far, been for nonessential characteristics of the state. It's like if you attack a fat guy for being fat then condemn all people. Okay? But not all people are fat. Not all states are aggressors against citizens.

Autolykos:

If I or anyone else is attacking a characteristic that is nonessential to your concept of "state", then 1) he's attacking a different concept of "state" and 2) he probably doesn't fully understand your concept of "state". A lot of what I feel like I've been doing in our exchange is figuring out exactly what you mean in terms that I can understand - if that makes sense.

Haha, well that's probably my fault then. However, I really think that this is not merely my concept of a state, but rather the irreducible logical consequence of what the state must be in minimum form. At its minimum it forms a body of law which it enforces. That is, the irreducible quality of the state is the ability to use coercion legally within society. And if it's true that this coercive power can be used either for good purposes (stopping aggressors) or bad purposes (aggressing against citizens), as you've already agreed, then why do we reject the state as a concept for the latter when it can still perform the former?

Autolykos:

Right, it may not be entirely consistent nor applicable to your (different) concept of "state". Neither your concept of "state" or theirs is right/wrong - they're simply different from one another.

It really isn't just my concept of a state. The state is a fact in the real world and can be analyzed as such.

Autolykos:

I'm assuming you really mean "the essential characteristics of a thing or concept" in the above. :P However, I don't see how defining "table" as "a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by four legs" contains anything that's necessarily non-essential. Maybe you see the four-legs requirement as non-essential, but that doesn't mean it is non-essential.

Yes, it does mean that four legs is nonessential. The essential is at least one leg to hold up a table, whatever form that leg takes, because--and now we meet up against the demands of reality--everything is affected by gravity. Without the one leg you don't have a table up off the floor, you have a board laying on the ground--and that's better described by a different word, 'board.'

Autolykos:

Do you see what I'm saying? It seems like what you're arguing is the same as arguing that me defining "table" that way is wrong because it doesn't match your definition of "table". That of course begs the question: logically speaking, do they have to match?

What I'm basically saying is that reality must be our epistemological reference point. It is the basis of reasoning, and of logic.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

A founding document must provide procedures for its own modification. Since it is the highest law of the land, how do you suppose it can be changed if it itself states that it cannot be changed? You mean the guys in charge could break the law and change it? o_O

I mean exactly that. What would necessarily stop them?

That the citizens/law-enforcement would likely sue/arrest them. There's still room for checks and balances after all. They could be prosecuted for that as surely as any criminal, since that would make them law breakers. If your point is that a society needs to be generally law abiding to hold to law, I agree, yet you also said only a small minority are law breakers--thus every society tends to live by its laws generally.

Autolykos:

Again, those firewalls could be removed. Otherwise, what do you think would ensure that the state is being lawfully conducted?

They could not be removed if the founding document states they cannot be removed. Come on man. As you said, people are generally law abiding. To propose an entire society would become law-breaking is to go beyond the bounds of reasonableness.

Autolykos:

Written statutes can be dictated by the whims or words of rulers, such as a majority of Congressmen.

Laws allowing whim-based decisions in public officials should be barred. In any case, most of the problem is removed by separating economy and state. There's not much room for whim in criminal law.

Autolykos:

That's not what I meant. You talked about the notion of "new legal concepts" being useful. You didn't qualify "new legal concepts". If a person considers a "right to healthcare" to be a "new new legal concept" that's useful, what's to stop them?

Primarily that a right to healthcare would contradict a right to self-ownership, for one thing. Which would be one of the basic rights.

Autolykos:

Well, if you define "right" as "something granted to people by the government", as you seem to do,

No, I consider a right only a legal aknowledgement of rights we already possess by nature of being human beings. The idea that the source of rights is government is an evil concept. They are rights by nature, intrinsic to us as people.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

We could do it on the water. I'm building out the concept now. What's needed is economic incentive. You need a medium size company that needs factory space and can live with lots of automation. Normally they'd pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to rent factory space for a year, not to mention fees, regulations, etc.

So, why not invest that money instead in a floating factory built inside a large-size tanker ship, and kept in international water. You live rent free, you boat people out a week at a time if need be, or run it remotely. Should be immediately profitable. From there you build more factories which creates a market for both transportation and local services and entertainment. Soon you can build some seasteading lillypads for permanent residents or those tired of boating back all the time, and it really just snowballs from there.

Would you store my boat on board in case I decide I've had enough?

Haha, you're free to leave any time.

Autolykos:

One cannot even say that such as communism is (i.e. must always be) a failure.

Anemone:

In comparison to capitalism, yes I can.

How so?

Under capitalism, a society can feed itself. Under communism, a population starves. This is historically proven and true. Hell, North Korea's starving right now. Russia has starved. Mao killed 20 million people during his "great leap forward" of communizing the farms. And Pol Pot murdered 25% of his country trying to do the same.

The idea that communism is more efficient economically than capitalism is historically disproven and a failure as an economic/political system.

I suppose if your real goal was obtaining control over people, then communism would be a raging success :P But in terms of what communism itself predicted 'We will bury you (economically)' says Kruschev, he was utterly wrong.

As for whether it must always be a failure, addressing the qualifier 'always' specifically, yes it will always be a failure in comparison to a capitalist system for the basic reason that communism does not organize human energy in accordance with its nature. Just as water will always be a worse fuel for any engine than gasoline, so too freedom is a better fueld for human production than despotism and tyranny and central control.

Autolykos:

On the one hand, it may not matter whether it's legal. People in the US federal government do things that are illegal, even unconstitutional, all the time. But on the other hand, just because the rules for changing Section 1 are inside section doesn't mean a new section can't be added which is said to supersede Section 1. And finally, people aren't computers or robots. They don't just automatically obey written rules just because they happen to exist.

It's a good point. But I don't consider any state to need perpetual existence to be a success. And since it's easy to leave the state, that's a self-check on its own excesses. The rulers start being despots, start your own thing. It is the prerogative of humanity.

The best safeguard, of course, is an educated populace devoted to the principles of NAP and free exchange. That's everyone'se goal here at least, I hope.

Autolykos:

What's the point of being a citizen if there are no added benefits, advantages, or "perks" to being one? I mean, even if citizens each received a t-shirt that said "I Became a Citizen of Tankeria and All I Got Was This Stupid T-Shirt", that would be something, wouldn't it?

For one thing you can't enter without becoming a citizen, since becoming a citizen means agreeing to the laws of that jurisdiction and little more. Beyond that, see my section above where I talk about allowing others to declare themselves citizens as pretext for invasion to free oppressed peoples. Declaring yourself a citizen of my floating state is one way to escape despotism wherever you are. That's a pretty huge despotism. To simply escape aggression and live free is a pretty massive benefit in my book, even if it is a wholly passive one.

Autolykos:

Or he could repel them from his land, right? Because he could consider them trespassers, right? (This, of course, assumes he hasn't committed any aggression against anyone.)

Correct. Would be no different than asking a guest to leave.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

If you must contract and agree to the laws to enter, stands to reason that if you want to break your contract on code of conduct that you must then leave. I doubt many city-states would want to deal with crackpots setting up their own justice system within their city-state which would inevitably lead to leeching the existing judicial system or patchwork judicial boundaries :P But the entire issue can be handled at the point of entering in the first place.

No, it can't - not unless the city-state owns all of the land within its borders.

In my scenario, one owner does own it all, because the state is being setup by a property owner of a large region intent on building a private city in its place. At which point he vests his control rights in a legal system while maintaining his ownership rights. But the state does not own, the citizen who set it up does. The state has only authority to check aggression within its bounds, and the citizen owning the city simply contracts with those wishing to enter seeking their agreement to be bound by the city-state's law system. It's all up front.

Autolykos:

That's been my whole point. If someone buys land outright from the city-state, regardless of whether the city-state is owned by one person or a group of people jointly, the land that he bought cannot logically be considered still a part of the city-state in a "private-law" legal sense. (Obviously the "public law" is presumed to have jurisdiction everywhere, not just over the city-state.)

Unless he's agreed to join the legal backbone as a precondition of purchasing / leasing there. Such preserves both his choice and the overarching legal structure and legitimacy.

Reply

Fool on the Hill replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 1:26 AM

rated by 0 users

Sorry, I've been busy, but I am still willing to continue the conversation, perhaps at a slower pace.

I admit to not knowing the difference [between mutualism and anarcho-communism]... is it possible to summarize the difference?

Well, I'm not intimately familiar with either tradition, but from what I understand, mutualists take an occupancy and use approach to productive property but a more propertarian approach to consumer goods. So workers produce goods collectively, sell them on the market, and then distribute the revenue amongst themselves in some sort of democratic fashion. Communists extend occupancy and use to consumer goods as well. There are no traditional markets or currency in a communist system. Everything is distributed according to need (which might mean that goods are simply free for the taking at some point).

My definition: an entity to which an individual functionally has exclusive access because other people have agreed to to let them have exclusive access.

My definition is intimately tied up in voluntary agreements. It requires no force or violence, but also says nothing about what would end up being property.

I may not have a problem with property as you define it. I certainly wish that others have exclusive access to certain entities at times. However, where I might disagree is on how these agreements are to be enforced. What ancaps seem to argue, correct me if I'm wrong, is that these contracts are to be enforced by private courts and protection agencies. So if a factory owner and a group of workers sign a contract, I presume that the contract is somehow enforceable by one of these third party protection agencies. If so, then it seems that there must also be a contract between the PA and the owners and workers. The obvious question is, who enforces the contract between the PA and its contractees? Another PA? Then we run into a reductio ad absurdum. The answer I usually hear from ancaps is that the market will enforce the contracts between PAs and their contractees. So if a PA fails to uphold its contract, people will simply not hire it again. But if markets are really capable of enforcing contracts, then why do we need PAs in the first place? If workers appropriate a factory, why not just say that the market will prevent them from being hired again? And surely the breach of contract capable of doing the most damage is that of the heavily armed PA. This has pretty much led me to reject contract theory as such.

What I like about stating these things in terms of *predictions* about what we think would happen in a free market, we get away from arguments about who is wrong and right, we get away from talk of violence and force and conflict, and we instead get to talk about people and the choices they would make, why they would make them, etc.

I agree that this is a good approach.

Most importantly, though: in this kind of formulation, would someone like you be willing to let "capitalists" practice their own definition of property *amongst themselves*, knowing that you also get to practice your definition amongst other people who prefer the same definition as you, even while you accept and realize that there will be friction and dissatisfaction on both side where the two groups interact with each other?

Yes, I don't believe in forcing people to organize themselves in a certain way. Most socialist anarchists believe that people must liberate themselves. If people are content to live under hierarchy and earn a wage, then that's fine with me. However, if a group of ancap factory workers decide to appropriate their factory and ask me for assistance, my decision to help them would not be impeded by the fact that they previously signed a contract to recognize the factory as the property of the "owner." Additionally, I may try to persuade ancap factory workers that it would be in their best interest to forget their contracts and appropriate the factory. But I certainly wouldn't force them to do so.

Would you consider such an arrangement preferable to the current arrangement (I'm almost certain you will say "yes" to this, since the state would be eliminated)?

Yes, but I'm not sure how possible it is for both to exist. I think your version of anarcho-capitalism is probably more compatible than others though.

Also, Hill (and Pony, if you're still here and still speaking to me), I an interested in the following, given the context that I've presented in which we are talking about making choices in a free market of contracts: can you explain why *you* would choose to formulate contracts with others that use the kind of "property" concept that you prefer? To simplify the reality: if there were a group of people using the capitalist definition of property, and another using your definition, why would you choose the latter? Is it a "moral" choice (perfectly valid reason to make a consumer choice, btw, I'm not mocking it)? It is a self-interest choice (also perfectly valid), e.g. you think that your life would be better - materially? Spiritually? Something else - in the latter group?

This probably warrants a much lengthier response. But I will say that I think I would be better off both materially and spiritually. I think such a society would foster the type of relationships, opportunities, and products that I value.

Reply

Anenome replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 3:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Fool on the Hill:

if a group of ancap factory workers decide to appropriate their factory and ask me for assistance, my decision to help them would not be impeded by the fact that they previously signed a contract to recognize the factory as the property of the "owner." Additionally, I may try to persuade ancap factory workers that it would be in their best interest to forget their contracts and appropriate the factory. But I certainly wouldn't force them to do so.

Wait what? What exactly do you mean by appropriation here, forcibly theft of the factory from the factory owner? Exactly how do you think you're anything but a thief engaging in coercion at that point? And what of the saying that government is force, therefore if you're using force on the factory owner you are deciding in that moment to become for a time a government, to appropriate what is not yours by virtue of force of arms. Seriously, do you somehow believe property is a fake concept (are you that naive)? Please justify this position 'cause I'm ready to label you a terrible person at this point, and one with obviously zero respect for the NAP. The amazing irony here is that you "wouldn't force" the workers to appropriate the factory, but you're still willing to appropriate the factory? Huh?

Reply

Fool on the Hill replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 10:25 AM

rated by 0 users

Wait what? What exactly do you mean by appropriation here, forcibly theft of the factory from the factory owner? Exactly how do you think you're anything but a thief engaging in coercion at that point? And what of the saying that government is force, therefore if you're using force on the factory owner you are deciding in that moment to become for a time a government, to appropriate what is not yours by virtue of force of arms. Seriously, do you somehow believe property is a fake concept (are you that naive)? Please justify this position 'cause I'm ready to label you a terrible person at this point, and one with obviously zero respect for the NAP. The amazing irony here is that you "wouldn't force" the workers to appropriate the factory, but you're still willing to appropriate the factory? Huh?

By approprating a factory, workers simply stop giving the "owner" the profits from the sale of the products they produce. Are you saying that stopping one's own actions constitutes a use of force against someone else? What is your definition of force?

According to Alternatives Considered, property is the result of mutually agreed contracts. I never signed a contract with the factory owners, so my assisting the workers does not constitute theft. I never recognized the factory as anyone's property. How have I violated the NAP?

Reply

Alternatives Considered replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 10:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Anemone, please read the prior parts of the thread invilving FOTHill, and her comments will make more sense. The bottom line is that FOTH is an anarchist who advocates and will participate in "no force against person or property", but she defines "property" differently than AnCaps do. In that sense, she is not an AnCap. She's an "An", but not the "Cap" part, since "capitalism" refers to a specific definition of property. She mostly takes, as she said, an occupation/use definition of property, particularly land property and "the means of production" property (factories, machinery, basically).

The view I have been taking - and I realize I'm in a minority amongst AnCaps - is that AnCaps and anarchists like FOTH can mostly peacably live side by side, each using our own definition of "property" amongst ourselves. I wouldn't choose to live in her definition of property (unless we got to watch both of these things play out and I ended up preferring what I see on her side), but it feels like force and thus basically requires war if both sides insist that their definition of "property" is the one right one.

Reply

Anenome replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 1:16 PM

rated by 0 users

Fool on the Hill:

By approprating a factory, workers simply stop giving the "owner" the profits from the sale of the products they produce.

How do they do that, exactly. I don't think you know what that would actually mean in real terms. In the real world, it's not the workers ensuring that raw materials enter the factory, and the workers do not take possession of the items that have had value added to them on their way to be sold.

In fact, what's occurring in any factory is that workers are selling their labor to another at a set value. The workers do not own any part of what is happening in a factory. They did not purchase the tools they are using, they are using those tools because the owner(s) have lent them to them to work with. Title of ownership to those tools does not pass to them simply because they're using them, anymore than a rental car becomes property of the renter.

Fool on the Hill:

Are you saying that stopping one's own actions constitutes a use of force against someone else?

If workers in a factory stopped their actions, that would constitute ceasing to sale their labor to the owners of the factory, which is equivalent to quitting their job. It does not and in no way can constitute a transfer of title of the factory to the workers.

Fool on the Hill:

What is your definition of force?

Coercion. Any forced exchange as opposed to free exchange. When you say you'd allow them to appropariate the factory you're endorsing a forced exchange of property and I call you a terrible person for advocating force.

Fool on the Hill:

According to Alternatives Considered, property is the result of mutually agreed contracts.

Contract can also be implicit. Not all property is worth enough to have a written contract, which is why the law still recognizes verbal contracts. When you buy anything at a store, a change in title takes place, a change in ownership, but you sign nothing in that case too. The title change is still in effect however.

Fool on the Hill:

I never signed a contract with the factory owners, so my assisting the workers does not constitute theft. I never recognized the factory as anyone's property. How have I violated the NAP?

So your evasion relies on you never having relied on recognizing the factory as the owner's property? That is incredibly childish.

Do you own yourself? If so, I have not recognized your right to your own body. Am I then guiltless if I deprive you of your (bodily) property (via murder)?

The fact is, you need not recognize another's property rights for them to legitimately own a thing. Such a rationale would not save you from being convicted of theft or murder.

When one holds property and you want it, or another wants it, there can be only two kinds of exchange: willing and unwilling (forced / coerced). You say that you would help workers engage in a forced exchange of property with the owners of the factory. That makes you accessory to theft, and yes, it violates the NAP just as surely if someone killed you using the same rationale you so tritely referred to.

Reply

Anenome replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 1:22 PM

rated by 0 users

Alternatives Considered:

She mostly takes, as she said, an occupation/use definition of property, particularly land property and "the means of production" property (factories, machinery, basically).

Occupation/use would only come close to conferring property rights on property that was previously non-owned. You find an unowned rock and no one cares if you pick it up and call it yours from that day on. No person has standing to stop you. But you take property from someone who has a claim on it and that is both coercion, theft, and a violation of the NAP.

Fool on the Hill:

The view I have been taking - and I realize I'm in a minority amongst AnCaps - is that AnCaps and anarchists like FOTH can mostly peacably live side by side, each using our own definition of "property" amongst ourselves.

They could, but probably not in the same society. And the anarchists like her would likely be considered immoral thieves and it would be quite difficult to do any business amongst them. Therefore, their society, lacking basic property rights protections, wouldn't go anywhere and they'd languish in the alleys of history much like the Amish and Menonites. All for a foolish definition of property which justifies theft. Any society where theft is rampant makes the accumulation of property very difficult. And where property cannot be accumulated you cannot engage in large scale production, which is often the most efficient kind of production. Meaning you've effectively shot the economy in the foot by bad philosophy.

Fool on the Hill:

I wouldn't choose to live in her definition of property (unless we got to watch both of these things play out and I ended up preferring what I see on her side), but it feels like force and thus basically requires war if both sides insist that their definition of "property" is the one right one.

Such people must be opposed and have the mask of reason stripped from them for all to see. A definition of property such as hers, one that rationalizes theft, is evil, and can cuse much suffering.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 2:41 PM

rated by 0 users

I see two main problems here:

1) Minarchists will not accept AnCap private courts because they make the same mistake statists do when they look at AnCaps in terms of regulation (which has been discussed in another thread): AnCaps are not against regulation. They are against a forceful and monopolistic state system of regulation. So they don't simply want to end the FDA. They expect (as will very likely happen) that there will be private agencies checking up on companies on a non-aggressive basis. Alternatively, consumers will simply buy from companies which promise to put labels on their foods and allow open inspections of their facilities.

In the same line of reasoning, simply because there is no state monopoly on the justice system, it doesn't mean that there will be no justice system. It will simply be a private one.

We know that we'd like some concept of "justice." However, we know that we will not be able to achieve perfect justice, as we are all humans and are in some way flawed. Thus, the argument boils down to the best way of achieving justice. We have two options:

- Have a state which decides what justice is, rigid in its structure and difficult to abolish if it becomes tyrannical

- Have private courts decide what justice is, with courts failing if they do not garner enough customers (by being unjust)

Since we are now discussing the practical aspect, we generally know that a free-market approach beats a centralized one (though I argue that the justice system today is hardly centralized (which again proves decentralization)).

Hence, we choose a free market court system.

Now, this is where problem number 2 comes in (the flaw in AnCap thought):

2) Any form of authority only exists because of its perception in the minds of people. Hence, the state only exists because we believe that 1) it must 2) it simply cannot go away 3) it would hurt is if we tried to disregard it.

Since the state exists, then we do believe in its authority and are voluntarily accepting it. Ah, you would say, we are hardly accepting it. The state has a monopoly on force, so it is forcing us! But stop and think: who gives it the monopoly on force? Not some all-powerful God which backs the state up. Simply the perception of people. A "monopoly" implies that it is completely impossible to break up the force (or that it is de facto the only player, but that doesn't apply, as there is plenty of violent perpetration every day). The state is not some "laws of physics" monopoly on force. It can in fact be perceived as a private court + police system. It's just that no one has realized that we do in fact live in AnCap (or more like An). So the perception of a state (and thus a "laws of physics" force governing us (indeed, as minarchists would like)) is flawed. We are voluntarily buying into the idea of the state. A private police force under AnCap which has grown so powerful that it is the only one left is no different from the current state.

Neither are "unbreakable" monopolies. In fact, the evidence of different nations existing and fighting wars amongst each other is proof that indeed the state is a private organization kept alive by nothing else than our belief that it is a "law of physics" monopoly.

This makes me quite disenchanted with anything.

Also, besides this point, I still have a question about AnCap:

In statism, the state forces you to come to court if you are being sued. Who does this in AnCap? Is it done?

Reply

Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 2:53 PM

rated by 0 users

This whole contradiction stems from a belief in the absolute:

Minarchists believe in absolute natural rights, hence an absolute state which will protect these rights.

AnCaps believe in an absolute state with an absolute monopoly, which is an illusion and simply a whole bunch of people giving belief to centuries of violations of the NAP.

My proposed solution (tentatively)? Minarchy with everything privatized (everything which would exist under minarchy of course; I do not mean privatize all unowned land automatically).

This way you retain the perception of authority while keeping the efficiency of the free market.

To quote our favorite economist:

In the long run, we're all dead.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 3:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Sorry to triple-post, but

uuuuultimately ultimately

it seems like personal ethics are the only way to keep a sane world, with the NAP as the principle everyone should have. Thus, AnCap wins as the most practical way to maintain the NAP, though the concept of the state is illusory anyway. Since the "state" is a derivative of AnCap, the best bet would be to educate people about aggression. Truly, the state is evil because of aggression. So the current institutions of the state which rely on aggression should be removed. Because they rely on aggression.

EDIT: I swear I'm not drunk, guys.

Reply

Fool on the Hill replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 6:26 PM

rated by 0 users

How do they do that, exactly. I don't think you know what that would actually mean in real terms. In the real world, it's not the workers ensuring that raw materials enter the factory, and the workers do not take possession of the items that have had value added to them on their way to be sold.

If the workers aren't ensuring that raw materials enter the factory, then who is? Does some sort of magical aura emanate from capitalists that makes things get done without any work? The Argentine factory occupations did away with capitalists, yet they seem to have figured out a way to get materials into the factory.

In fact, what's occurring in any factory is that workers are selling their labor to another at a set value. The workers do not own any part of what is happening in a factory. They did not purchase the tools they are using, they are using those tools because the owner(s) have lent them to them to work with. Title of ownership to those tools does not pass to them simply because they're using them, anymore than a rental car becomes property of the renter.

They're selling their labor to pay a ransom. Who cares whether they have a "title" to it? Are you going to force them to have a title? The owner can only lend tools because he uses force to prevent people from using them otherwise.

Coercion. Any forced exchange as opposed to free exchange. When you say you'd allow them to appropariate the factory you're endorsing a forced exchange of property and I call you a terrible person for advocating force.

Oh I see, violating any type of property rights constitutes a use of force. That doesn't square with AC's definition though because he believes that a force-free market can precede the creation of property rights.

Do you own yourself? If so, I have not recognized your right to your own body. Am I then guiltless if I deprive you of your (bodily) property (via murder)?

If we are using AC's definition of property, then you would indeed be guiltless of depriving me of property. I don't own my body in such a case. However, that doesn't exclude you from being guiltless of murdering me.

The fact is, you need not recognize another's property rights for them to legitimately own a thing. Such a rationale would not save you from being convicted of theft or murder.

Not according to AC's definition.

When one holds property and you want it, or another wants it, there can be only two kinds of exchange: willing and unwilling (forced / coerced). You say that you would help workers engage in a forced exchange of property with the owners of the factory. That makes you accessory to theft, and yes, it violates the NAP just as surely if someone killed you using the same rationale you so tritely referred to.

By holding property, you mean has a right to it by some sort of theoretical justification. My conversation with AC involved how such a theoretical justification could be selected in a free market. Without such a selection process, we can't determine what theft is. I respect AC's justification because it relies on mutual consent based on human desire. His argument is predictive, not normative. Your idea of property rights seems like it rests on either arbitrary normative premises or irrational conclusions.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 6:56 PM

rated by 0 users

You misunderstood. I meant that "freedom" in a political context can be defined in an all-or-nothing way. I wasn't talking about "total physical freedom".

Anemone:

But you first created a new word before defining it. In this instance, the existing phenomena is the word which has no correlation to reality, but it still exists. As a word, or a thought, or a nonsense word.

My point was that the word doesn't correspond to any known physical phenomenon.

Anemone:

However in terms of communication, the idea is to get meaning into the head of another, and words must be precisely defined for that to work. And then when we get to reasoning, logic, and political theory it is even more important.

I agree wholeheartedly with semantic precision and rigor. But that doesn't mean there are only so many concepts to be used as definitions for words.

Anemone:

What else? That's its only ethical reason to exist. It's the only thing that I can't imagine stripping away from government due to the nature of law. Well, the state would be a law creator, a holder of jurisdiction, the enforcement could be privatized, or more likely would have a state apparatus but allow for private competitors.

You've agreed that law concerns people, not territory, first and foremost. Hence there can only be "law of the land" if the land is considered, however implicitly or even deceptively, owned by a single person or joint group. You also seem to agree with the concept of "natural law", which means that the vast majority of people don't need to be explicitly told the vast majority of the time what they're absolutely not allowed to do. Furthermore, you've come to allow for competitors in the enforcement of law. It would then seem that you allow for a plurality, not a monopoly, of institutions to be considered to legitimately use coercion. So where is there any room for a state in all of this? You seem to be essentially an anarcho-capitalist already. :)

Anemone:

You don't, but that has nothing to do with the definition... color me confused.

Yes it does. Either the definition of "rose" points to a certain beautiful flower, or it doesn't.

Anemone:

Ah. I think the definition tries to capture a concept, to capture meaning of a phenomena, thought, emotion, thing, etc. And if successful it delineates this thing from all other things. And the primary process in doing that is both stripping out nonessentials (like number of legs in a table) and building a definition which encompasses the variety of the thing or concept (such as the definition of a table as 1 or more legs).

Eskimos apparently have over 30 words for different kinds of snow. Does the English word "snow" successfully delineate its common meaning from all other things? No, I don't think it does, because things can be contained by other things. Furthermore, there are an infinite number of distinctions that can be made between one thing and another. I still see no reason why I can't define "table" as "a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by four and only four legs". It seems perfectly intelligible to me, as long as I explicitly indicate the definition I'm using to avoid confusion.

Anemone:

No, I'm really asserting that what the state's been attacked for by anarchs has, so far, been for nonessential characteristics of the state. It's like if you attack a fat guy for being fat then condemn all people. Okay? But not all people are fat. Not all states are aggressors against citizens.

Okay, which states in history have not intentionally aggressed against citizens? And what again are the essential characteristics of the state, in your opinion? Because it sounds to me like what you're advocating isn't really a state at all - by the anarcho-capitalist definition of "state".

Anemone:

Haha, well that's probably my fault then. However, I really think that this is not merely my concept of a state, but rather the irreducible logical consequence of what the state must be in minimum form. At its minimum it forms a body of law which it enforces. That is, the irreducible quality of the state is the ability to use coercion legally within society. And if it's true that this coercive power can be used either for good purposes (stopping aggressors) or bad purposes (aggressing against citizens), as you've already agreed, then why do we reject the state as a concept for the latter when it can still perform the former?

If a body of law is enforced by a plurality of institutions, as opposed to a monopoly institution, where is there a state at all? Or would you then consider that plurality of institutions to form a "collective state"?

Once again, anarcho-capitalists are rejecting a concept of "state" that is at least slightly different from yours. Anarcho-capitalists consider an absence of a (claimed) monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion to be an absence of a state.

Anemone:

It really isn't just my concept of a state. The state is a fact in the real world and can be analyzed as such.

Again, this is the same to me as you claiming that your concept of "state" is somehow the correct concept of it. Please back this up with reasoning and/or evidence.

Anemone:

Yes, it does mean that four legs is nonessential. The essential is at least one leg to hold up a table, whatever form that leg takes, because--and now we meet up against the demands of reality--everything is affected by gravity. Without the one leg you don't have a table up off the floor, you have a board laying on the ground--and that's better described by a different word, 'board.'

You're implicitly redefining the word "table" to prove your point - that that's the proper definition of "table" to use. This is known as circular reasoning. For clarity here, I'll paraphrase your argument as it appears to me, without using the word "table":

You can't define a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by one or more legs as a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by four and only four legs, because an essential characteristic of a piece of furniture with a flat surface supported by one or more legs is that at least one leg supports the flat surface.

I hope that helps.

Anemone:

What I'm basically saying is that reality must be our epistemological reference point. It is the basis of reasoning, and of logic.

How is it any less real to define "table" as "a piece of furniture supported by four and only four legs"? The reality is that "table" is just a word.

Anemone:

That the citizens/law-enforcement would likely sue/arrest them. There's still room for checks and balances after all. They could be prosecuted for that as surely as any criminal, since that would make them law breakers. If your point is that a society needs to be generally law abiding to hold to law, I agree, yet you also said only a small minority are law breakers--thus every society tends to live by its laws generally.

"Likely" is not the same as "necessarily". So you haven't answered my question at all.

Anemone:

They could not be removed if the founding document states they cannot be removed. Come on man. As you said, people are generally law abiding. To propose an entire society would become law-breaking is to go beyond the bounds of reasonableness.

The certainly could be removed even if the founding document says they cannot be removed. Furthermore, since we're talking about a small group of the total population presumably having the power to "ultimately" enforce and interpret this founding document, we don't have to worry about the entire society. Look at the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, for example. What was undoubtedly meant to be clear and unambiguous language has been nevertheless re-interpreted over and over to mean almost the exact opposite of its original meaning! And that's been done without even removing it outright!

In any case, I was arguing a theoretical point - that people are not computers and therefore are not bound to follow written documents as if they're CPU instructions. Given that people have free will, that means they theoretically have the ability to disregard and violate any and all rules per se that have been set before them. Physical barriers and consequences are another thing entirely.

Anemone:

Laws allowing whim-based decisions in public officials should be barred. In any case, most of the problem is removed by separating economy and state. There's not much room for whim in criminal law.

How would such laws be barred? How would a separation between economy and state (I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, to be honest) be ensured? Etc.

There certainly is room for whim in criminal law. As a trivial example, people aren't allowed (by criminal statute) to purchase or consume alcohol in the US until they've reached 21 years of age. You don't think that criminal law has been a matter of whim?

Anemone:

Primarily that a right to healthcare would contradict a right to self-ownership, for one thing. Which would be one of the basic rights.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it couldn't nevertheless be also enshrined in the constitution at a later date. Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for some heavy logical contradictions in a legal(istic) document. By allowing for any legislature at all, you open up Pandora's Box for this kind of shenaningans.

Anemone:

No, I consider a right only a legal aknowledgement of rights we already possess by nature of being human beings. The idea that the source of rights is government is an evil concept. They are rights by nature, intrinsic to us as people.

Strictly speaking, I don't think we possess any rights by nature of being human beings. To argue otherwise is to run into the is-ought problem. There are rights which the vast majority of us instinctively hold for ourselves and for others the vast majority of the time. But that's a different thing entirely and does not run into the is-ought problem.

Anemone:

Haha, you're free to leave any time.

That doesn't answer my question. Would you or would you not store my boat on board in case I decide I've had enough?

Anemone:

Under capitalism, a society can feed itself. Under communism, a population starves. This is historically proven and true. Hell, North Korea's starving right now. Russia has starved. Mao killed 20 million people during his "great leap forward" of communizing the farms. And Pol Pot murdered 25% of his country trying to do the same.

No, what's been proven is that, under some regimes that have called themselves "communist", populations have starved. Was there rampant famine in e.g. East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, or (North) Vietnam?

Anemone:

The idea that communism is more efficient economically than capitalism is historically disproven and a failure as an economic/political system.

I suppose if your real goal was obtaining control over people, then communism would be a raging success :P But in terms of what communism itself predicted 'We will bury you (economically)' says Kruschev, he was utterly wrong.

As for whether it must always be a failure, addressing the qualifier 'always' specifically, yes it will always be a failure in comparison to a capitalist system for the basic reason that communism does not organize human energy in accordance with its nature. Just as water will always be a worse fuel for any engine than gasoline, so too freedom is a better fueld for human production than despotism and tyranny and central control.

I think a more accurate statement is that, given the historical evidence, it's very (if not extremely) likely that abolishing private property in the means of production and instituting central planning will be less economically efficient than private property in the means of production and the lack of central planning.

Anemone:

It's a good point. But I don't consider any state to need perpetual existence to be a success. And since it's easy to leave the state, that's a self-check on its own excesses. The rulers start being despots, start your own thing. It is the prerogative of humanity.

The best safeguard, of course, is an educated populace devoted to the principles of NAP and free exchange. That's everyone'se goal here at least, I hope.

I believe it is. But as far as I can tell, it's so easy to leave your hypothetical state that I wouldn't consider it a state at all, except that you seem to be vacillating somewhat on its characteristics.

Anemone:

For one thing you can't enter without becoming a citizen, since becoming a citizen means agreeing to the laws of that jurisdiction and little more. Beyond that, see my section above where I talk about allowing others to declare themselves citizens as pretext for invasion to free oppressed peoples. Declaring yourself a citizen of my floating state is one way to escape despotism wherever you are. That's a pretty huge despotism. To simply escape aggression and live free is a pretty massive benefit in my book, even if it is a wholly passive one.

Would you call someone entering a restaurant to be a "citizen" of that restaurant? Why or why not?

Anemone:

Correct. Would be no different than asking a guest to leave.

So then he wouldn't be at any legal disadvantage, now would he?

Anemone:

In my scenario, one owner does own it all, because the state is being setup by a property owner of a large region intent on building a private city in its place. At which point he vests his control rights in a legal system while maintaining his ownership rights. But the state does not own, the citizen who set it up does. The state has only authority to check aggression within its bounds, and the citizen owning the city simply contracts with those wishing to enter seeking their agreement to be bound by the city-state's law system. It's all up front.

So what's the point in calling it a state? Just because it's not under the jurisdiction of any pre-existing state? I don't see the point in doing that unless your real goal here is to gain legitimacy for your flotilla among the states of the world.

In any case, by your reasoning, the citizen owning the property is indeed the state first and foremost. Even if he delegates enforcement of his laws to other people, that doesn't mean those other people become a power unto themselves (at least not intentionally). Furthermore, you say that he vests control rights in a legal system, but he can theoretically abolish that legal system whenever he wants. So he's actually reserving the control rights and simply delegating exercise of control to other people. Besides, the ownership rights are the control rights. There's no difference there, as far as I can see.

Anemone:

Unless he's agreed to join the legal backbone as a precondition of purchasing / leasing there. Such preserves both his choice and the overarching legal structure and legitimacy.

There can be no legitimate (i.e. non-aggressive) precondition of remaining part of "the legal backbone" in order to purchase land "within the city". You're limited to never actually selling any land to anyone.

Reply

Anenome replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 1:05 PM

rated by 0 users

I had a (lengthy) post and the server ate it :<

***wait, I found it!***

Reply

Wheylous replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 1:12 PM

rated by 0 users

Yeah, that always sucks.

Can someone please address my posts (3)? :D

Reply

Anenome replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 1:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

Would you agree that, whether a person is capable of his own defense all the time, he is ultimately responsible for his own defense?

Absolutely.

Autolykos:

If a person wants to go into business as a judge (or arbiter, or whatever you want to call it), why should he be stopped?

As an arbiter, sure, but I'm not at all sure about criminal courts of law. In dealing with contract law you aren't talking about using force, but in criminal law you are. And that requires some accountability and perhaps conferral of authority by popular vote. Surely lifetime appointments are right out.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

I agree it's a weird state of being, but it's also the only way an anarchist state is likely to come into being :P

I don't know who you're trying to convince with that bare assertion. Certainly not me.

Autolykos:

On the other hand, you did say that any "city-state" could secede from the "federal government" any time it wanted to. So I don't really see the point of this "federal government" aside from being basically a militia. Would it allow other militias to form under "its jurisdiction"?

Autolykos:

So would this "federal government" have one or more organizations that actively patrol everywhere looking for trouble? Or would it only prosecute when someone pressed charges? Keep in mind that the latter has been the historical norm, in fact.

Autolykos:

Many, if not most or all, contract disputes can be interpreted as thefts. I contract with you to build a house, but you pocket the money and never show anything for it. Essentially, then, you've stolen my money. By your reasoning, then, contract disputes are part of criminal law, not civil law.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

It may be that any civil dispute which requires the use of force within society should go to a gov civil court which exists alongside the private courts of dispute (which would be primarily used by businesses). Thus, any dispute where one party is refusing to come to court or where you require things like attaching a bank account, etc., would need to move up to the public civil court. Even the private arbitration courts might eventually need to move up to a coercive institution. But I don't think it should have a monopoly on anything but coercion. Obviously a private and coercive court is a contradiction in terms. But since it is necessary within a functioning society it has to come from somewhere, somehow.

 

Why must there be a monopoly over the (ultimate) use of legitimate coercion for a given area of land or group of people - as the above seems to imply? Note that I consider this a different question than the one about a monopoly in law itself.

Autolykos:

That's right. So what's the point in calling it a "city" as opposed to simply calling it what it is - an area of privately-owned land that has been divided up into many rental units?

Autolykos:

Why do you feel the need to have elected representatives, when presumably judges can establish legal precedents? I see no reason that such a "quite basic" document would per se "prevent the fed authority from overstepping [its] bounds in time and growing in power as we've seen lately". So far you have failed to demonstrate to me how such must be the case.

Autolykos:

I fail to see how any of this per se prevents future power-grabbing by the federal government.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

The eventual goal being to allow cities in other countries to do the same, such that this way of life, that is Freedom, can be spread.

How in the world is freedom a way of life?

Autolykos:

Besides, if all the city-states are privately-owned tracts of land held by single individuals or multiple individuals jointly, isn't this the same as simply contracting with a private militia? And again, for this militia to be non-aggressive, it would necessarily allow (i.e. not prevent by force) other people to form militias within "its jurisdiction" if they so choose. Hence it really has no territorial jurisdiction at all.

Autolykos:

If you say "perhaps it's permissible", then how did I convince you of anything?

Autolykos:

How is it a contradiction in terms, exactly? But also, see above about how contractual agreements can also be seen as part of public law, inasmuch as they often (or typically) constitute thefts when broken.

Autolykos:

I wasn't talking about that at all. But if you really want to change the context here, then let me ask you: do you seriously think that there are all these "damn furriners" out there just chomping at the bit to "take us over"?

Autolykos:

What in the world are you calling a "region"? If there's already an initial prevailing legal order based on our instinctive morality, why does one need to be set up from scratch? Obviously a person doesn't need a prevailing legal order to be willing to defend what he sees as his from those who he sees as trying to take it from him.

Autolykos:

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you how they will be helped. That is, I was asking you the same form of (logically fallacious) question that you asked me before. The correct answer is "I don't know", because you don't. Neither do I. We're all in the same boat on this, no matter what normative theory each of us might subscribe to. No normative theory has the power to impose certainty on the future.

Autolykos:

Excuse me, but I have not backed myself into a financial corner, thank you very much. I doubt that you have either. So please don't commit the collectivist fallacy of conflating individual US citizens with the US federal government.

Autolykos:

Why a (i.e. necessarily single) police force? How will this police force know when someone is wrongfully imprisoned? Will it always be patrolling everywhere looking for trouble? Won't that infringe upon people's privacy?

Autolykos:

It depends on what you mean by "body of law". I personally think there will be something very much like the common laws of various parts of the world.

Autolykos:

Those common-law systems were essentially built upon precedents in settling disputes. Even legal systems that aren't typically regarded as common-law systems, such as Roman law, had their basis in common law. For a couple of examples, check out the English common law and the Somali Xeer.

Autolykos:

I don't think there would be police forces in anarchist societies in the modern-day sense of the term. Instead, I think people would hire others to help protect their property.

Autolykos:

Anemone:

Right, but I still don't see in there a place where the defenseless are being protected after being overpowered. An orphan child being held as a slave, who protects him?

 

Again, the way you're asking the question implies that you believe there is, or can be, certainty in the future.

Autolykos:

There isn't. The question is nonsense. It's also inherently contradictory, since an orphan child being held as a slave has obviously not been protected by anyone.

Autolykos:

Simply declaring it to be a crime is one thing. Enforcement is quite another, isn't it? What are your ideas for enforcement here?

Autolykos:

You're talking about the division of labor here. Do you really think a division of labor cannot exist without a federal government? Why or why not?

Autolykos:

Anemone:

No, I don't mean only direct physical control, I mean control in every sense possible. You don't only control your arm, you also control how it may be disposed of, destroyed, sold, or given away, etc. Same with the house. If you rent it, you're maintaining title and certain rights over it. To rent it you're selling those rights to another for a set period, but you've not given them up completely. You could, in theory, rent an arm to someone else--allowing doctors to cut it off, attach it to someone else, and then reverse the procedure at some later date. We don't do that for obvious reasons but the analogy to control of the house is applicable. You own it both physically and in terms of title, but I'm glad you made me clarify that concept.

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong about renting a house. The owner retains title to the house.

Autolykos:

My point was that the word doesn't correspond to any known physical phenomenon.