Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 12:17:35 PM



Title: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 12:17:35 PM
My mind is geared towards the physical sciences rather than the social sciences, so please be patient with me.  My newby understanding Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is essentially takes Right Libertarian minarchism and subtracts the state (many An-Caps, myself included, came to Anarcho-Capitalism from Right Libertarian minarchism simply by subtracting the state after understanding how a stateless society could function).  However, I have seen a lot of economically left memes arise in some Anarcho-Capitalist circles, and this greatly perplexes me.   A lot of An-Caps profess Agorism, which is said by some to be "Left Libertarian".  One definition of "Left Libertarian" that I have found indicates that it merely emphasizes social issues where Right Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists tend to agree with the left (anti-war, the right to use drugs, and so on), in other words, that it is merely a marketing ploy to convert statist liberals to An-Cap.  If this is what Left Libertarianism is, then I have no issue with it, but another definition that I have seen equates Left Libertarianism with Libertarian Socialism (with severe restrictions on what constitutes private property), which, as as someone who strongly believes in the free market, I have a very big problem with. 

Lately, I have seen numerous attacks on this board on the the traditional understanding of private property, which I thought that An-Caps support.  These attacks often spring from discussions of corporations, which I agree should not exist, since if there is no state, there can be no corporations.  However, I adamantly favor the right or people to form large businesses in a stateless society, whereas some people here seem to oppose the existence of any large businesses, corporate or non-corporate, as their peculiar notions of homesteading preclude the validity of all absentee property ownership (I find this odd, since I can think of many who profess both homesteading and absentee ownership).

Granted, I have seen a lot of Anarcho-Capitalists profess Agorism who I have no doubt are still economically right, free market advocates.  For instance, Adam Kokesh is into Agorism, and he is a steadfast opponent of socialism and Anarcho-Communism (in one Youtube video, he ridicules Anarcho-Communists who vandalized businesses during a protest, and even said that as non-propertarians, they are fake anarchists).  I have seen a lot of criticism of Anarcho-Communism on this message board.  However, the recent bashing of large non-corporate businesses and the restrictions on private land ownership that some profess have me confused.  I understand that not everyone here is an An-Cap, but the people spreading these memes certainly seem to portray themselves, in their other posts, as being in the An-Cap camp.

As a newby, is there something basic that I am overlooking?  Is the old stereotype, that all anarchists are some flavor of socialist, true, and An-Cap closer to An-Com than I realized, or are there just some confused individuals, or individuals with ulterior motives, who profess An-Cap (or perhaps there are a lot of individuals who fall on the spectrum somewhere between the absolutist private property, free market end and the anti-private property end)?  Is my perception of An-Cap as extremely economically right essentially correct?  If the answer is yes, then why does so much economically leftist ideology arise in An-Cap circles like this message board?



Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 12:20:49 PM
Perhaps the people whom I have in mind from this message board and other places fall into one of the two intermediate categories on this graph:  

(http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/pictures/AnarchismTree08.gif)

In any case, any complex society would necessarily have to respect private property as we currently understand it (that includes absentee ownership).  Any form of anarchy that does not respect the right of groups of individuals to pool their wealth and own things like roads, factories, and so forth, would be either primitive or chaotic (probably both).


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: eglove on September 12, 2013, 12:35:42 PM
I'm on your side, I have debate anarcho-socialists to death who think that voluntarily working for someone is a crime. They vehemently believe that every business should be a "coop" and that even by private contract people should work for people. >.< This is not anarchism, its just your classic everyday socialism.

Socialism Anarchism Criticism (http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/socialist-anarchist-criticism/)
Are Libertarian Views Communist? (http://www.anarchocapitalism.us/libertarian-views-communist/)


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 01:02:26 PM
Is my perception of An-Cap as extremely economically right essentially correct?  If the answer is yes, then why does so much economically leftist ideology arise in An-Cap circles like this message board?

Honestly I am as shocked (or more) as you are.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Seth King on September 12, 2013, 01:13:42 PM
Can you offer some evidence of private property and large business bashing?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Victor on September 12, 2013, 01:37:53 PM
I think the problem is basically that there are so many different types of anarchism and so many different ideas tossed around that the issues get muddled up and hard to understand. I've seen that graph before, and it seems to do a fair job, but I'm not sure any graph could give a coherent accounting of all the ideas of different anarchists. (I even saw something on "communist egoism" at one point I think, though I don't recall where now. I can look it up if anyone is interested.)

If you were to try and understand all the different ideas put forth under the label of "anarchist", I'm afraid you'd quite probably just end up drowning in reading material. My own understanding, currently, is that "Anarcho-Capitalism", is absolutely in favor of private property, based on the ideas of homesteading and legitimate-title-transfer, (getting something from someone else through voluntary trade or gift-giving,) as the just methods for gaining such private property. In other words, your perception of an-cap is pretty much correct, private business and private property are supported. Anarcho-capitalists seem to be the ones most vehemently criticizing and attacking communist anarchism. (See Murray Rothbard here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/anti-capitalist-libertarians/))

The term "Market Anarchist" seems to be a bit looser, sometimes encompassing some of the memes you spoke of, but still seems to hold that the free market is superior to other economic systems and that property ownership based on homesteading and voluntary transactions is the way to go. Sometimes Market anarchism seems to be used in a way equivalent to anarcho-capitalism, and other times it seems to be used in a way that accepts the communist critic of capitalism as far as "wage-slavery" and so forth, but still rejects the idea that property should be communally owned and argues that a truly free market, in the sense talked about by Smith, Mises, and Rothbard, is still the best possible economic system.

Mutualism, from my reading of the Mutualist community of Modern Times, entails private ownership of property but also accepts the labor theory of value, meaning they try to buy and sell things "at cost", trading based on the amount of time put into creating something rather than the subjective value something has to a particular economic actor. Anarcho-capitalism certainly accepts the subjective theory of value, and my impression is that Market Anarchism does as well, though there might be some self-declared market anarchist somewhere who rejects it that I'm not aware of.

Edward Stringham's book Anarchy and the Law (http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=67) gives a good overview of the "economically right" side of the anarchist movement, though I haven't read through all of it yet. (Most of the articles are reprinted from elsewhere and many seem to be freely available online. Here's the introduction (http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Stringham%20(Edward%20P.)%20-%20Anarchy%20and%20the%20Law.pdf) for instance. I skipped to the historical case-study section myself, and started looking up the different articles, since that was what I was most interested in.) I think it also has a chapter which describes the differences between the different kinds of anarchism, IIRC.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 03:12:52 PM
I think the answer to your question is very simple, and you're overthinking it.

Most people, of any ideology, don't have a well thought out, consistent, framework of beliefs.  It is no different to ask "Why do the Republicans scream about ending entitlements, while simultaneously yelling 'Don't touch Medi-care!'?"

Or "Why is the ACLU Hell-Bent on protecting the Bill of Rights, except Amendment II"?

Personally, I have no problem with "Corporations".  Contrary to popular belief, they aren't a government invention, they've existed since the Middle Ages.  Treating them as if they were people, or citizens, is silly, and the government licensing them is contrary to my view of an-cap, but the point of an LLC, or "Limited Liability Corporation" is that you can invest some of your money in my company and, if I do something criminal, you only lose your investment, not everything you own.  Of course, if you are aware of and involved in the criminal (or civilly actionable) behavior, then you can still be named personally as a co-defendant.

Until fairly recently in this country (post WWII), in order to form a corporation you had to show how it would benefit society at large (i.e. we're gathering investors to build a hydroelectric dam and sell electricity. Besides providing the market with electricity, we will also reduce flooding along the river.), and you had to specify a date (renewable) when your corporation would be dissolved. I don't think the government should be able to mandate that, but investors certainly could, through a contract.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Erv Hill on September 13, 2013, 06:29:21 AM
All very intriguing, but shouldn't we focus on the left side of the hyphen instead of the right? With the focus on the right side of the hyphen, we are achieving the state's goal for them, we are dividing ourselves into finite chunks allowing for easy defeat and/or discredit.

The focus needs to remain "I am an Anarchist". Once the state is eliminated, we can return to the debate about the right side of the hyphen. Right now I see too much emphasis on how society functions after the elimination of the state, than how to eliminate the state in the first place. This is commonly referred to as putting the cart before the horse, but I prefer to call it mental masturbation.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 13, 2013, 06:47:52 AM
All very intriguing, but shouldn't we focus on the left side of the hyphen instead of the right? With the focus on the right side of the hyphen, we are achieving the state's goal for them, we are dividing ourselves into finite chunks allowing for easy defeat and/or discredit.

The focus needs to remain "I am an Anarchist". Once the state is eliminated, we can return to the debate about the right side of the hyphen. Right now I see too much emphasis on how society functions after the elimination of the state, than how to eliminate the state in the first place. This is commonly referred to as putting the cart before the horse, but I prefer to call it mental masturbation.

On the other side of that equation are violently destructive people.  A few aren't, but many are.  Whenever we speak to them, they talk about how they want to take our stuff and kill us if we don't join them and shut up. 

We would allow them their own autonomy, but that isn't their goal.  They want to destroy all things that isn't their way. 

I think you ought to go give your masturbation speech to them.   


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 13, 2013, 01:55:21 PM
Can you offer some evidence of private property and large business bashing?

Agrarian_Agorist has criticized absentee ownership, as but one example.  Imagine how primitive society would be if you could never leave your property.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: MAM on September 14, 2013, 01:10:31 AM
Quote
The focus needs to remain "I am an Anarchist". Once the state is eliminated, we can return to the debate about the right side of the hyphen. Right now I see too much emphasis on how society functions after the elimination of the state, than how to eliminate the state in the first place. This is commonly referred to as putting the cart before the horse, but I prefer to call it mental masturbation.

The Left agrees with you we need to focus on how to bring down the authoritative institutions and that's why we can't work together. Because how we go about doing these things are opposed.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 14, 2013, 02:17:27 PM
Can you offer some evidence of private property and large business bashing?

Agrarian_Agorist has criticized absentee ownership, as but one example.  Imagine how primitive society would be if you could never leave your property.

I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 14, 2013, 04:05:16 PM
I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.

Well then, I guess we need a government.  We can all democratically agree to accept or reject your claim.  This website is now obsolete.  Thanks everyone for posting here. 



Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 14, 2013, 04:51:26 PM
I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.

Well then, I guess we need a government.  We can all democratically agree to accept or reject your claim.  This website is now obsolete.  Thanks everyone for posting here. 



I didn't say that a government is needed; however if nobody respects your claim than it is pointless.  Either protect what you have or lose it; you cannot really expect other people to put themselves in harms way for your claims of ownership without heavily compensating them -one way or another.  There is a reason police officers become corrupt, and their corruption has been going on long before they've become a protected class.  This corruption will occur in private security as well; it already does.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 02:38:55 AM
I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.

Well then, I guess we need a government.  We can all democratically agree to accept or reject your claim.  This website is now obsolete.  Thanks everyone for posting here. 



I didn't say that a government is needed; however if nobody respects your claim than it is pointless.  Either protect what you have or lose it; you cannot really expect other people to put themselves in harms way for your claims of ownership without heavily compensating them -one way or another.  There is a reason police officers become corrupt, and their corruption has been going on long before they've become a protected class.  This corruption will occur in private security as well; it already does.

In most people, corruption is a direct side-effect of power, and is proportional to the degree of that power.  A person tasting power over others will (in most cases) begin both to be corrupted by it and to thirst for more.  They embrace ever more corruption in the pursuit of ever more power.  The addiction feeds on itself, and expands.  Personally, I think power seekers have something twisted in their brains from the beginning.  Power over the lives and actions of others is a bizarre and perverted thing to want, IMO.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 10:46:11 AM
I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.

Well then, I guess we need a government.  We can all democratically agree to accept or reject your claim.  This website is now obsolete.  Thanks everyone for posting here. 



Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: victim77 on September 15, 2013, 11:20:45 AM
I am a mutualist-a free market "anti capitalist". The problem is that many on the left use a different definition of capitalism from ancaps an libertarians. Capitalism to them is the culmination of the state-corporate corruption and exploitation of the working classes, with union bashing, the inflation tax, regulations that crush competition, and privileges to corporations that create an extremely one sided power structure and control everyones lives (ex. intellectual property).
   
  I've been on this board for two years now, and even though I have crossed to the "dark side" I love reading this board because I think some of the best minds in the movement come here and DISAGREE about things. State Hater calls himself a "newby" to ancaps and I wholeheartedly support his conversion, but I wish he wouldn't be so divisionist. Ancaps have a varied view of many issues, just like anyone else. But just because Ancaps can't agree on everything, and Anarchists can't agree on everything, doesn't mean we should be disowning or disregarding their views (other than ancoms, because we all know they have no idea what they're talking about).

   To actually answer your question though, State Hater, I believe that anarchists of any stripe came to the philosophy by questioning everything that you thought was right. If the government, an institution that is so intertwined with our lives, is illegitimate, then what else do we take for granted in this society? What if the "traditional" property rights are wrong? What if IP is wrong? What if consumerism and materialism is killing us? If advertising poisons our minds? What if our entire way of life is illegitimate? If you asked everyone on this board, you'd get a different answer every time. And this is because there is nobody telling us what to think. Sure, people will try to influence us, like Stefan, Adam Kokesh, Kevin Carson, Lew Rockwell, David Freidman, SEK3, Rothbard, Spooner, Tucker, Kropotkin, Mises, Marx, Hayek, Keynes, and thousands more, but
the point is that nobody is going to have the same opinion, even in a small circle like this.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: MAM on September 15, 2013, 01:25:56 PM
Mutualists have some wierd ideas but at least they aren't insane like the AnComs over on libcom....


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 15, 2013, 02:57:24 PM
Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.

General acceptance of theft doesn't make it right. 

(http://xmova.com/img/two-wolves-two-worlds-2012/6.jpg)


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 04:32:16 PM
Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.

General acceptance of theft doesn't make it right. 

(http://xmova.com/img/two-wolves-two-worlds-2012/6.jpg)

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 15, 2013, 04:43:06 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 05:43:43 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 05:52:01 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 05:55:58 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 06:45:45 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 15, 2013, 08:44:51 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.

Is it?  Proof that you haven't been reading my posts after all. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 08:55:25 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.

Is it?  Proof that you haven't been reading my posts after all. 

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

Obviously the first claim of unowned property must be recognized; and a claim doesn't have to be a piece of paper, for who has legitimacy to write such a paper for an unowned property.  The paper is written on behalf of the first owner, as title of ownership.  If a property is unowned then there cannot be a title of ownership; can there be?

I will say it again.  If you believe in property rights and you believe in the ability of absentee ownership, then if you want to be ideological consistent, you must recognize my ownership of the rest of the Universe; otherwise your ideas of ownership are just things you personally like haphazardly put together without any real consistency.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 09:05:57 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

So I've asked before, and never got an answer.  Where in your philosophy does my cabin fit?  I cannot live there full time, because I must earn a living in the city.  I spend weekends and vacations improving the place a step at a time, first installing well and septic, then spending six months of weekends building a house, then spending a two week vacation installing solar panels and a perimeter fence...  My plan is to eventually retire onto the property, but at present I'm only occupying it about 10% of the time.  You think someone has a right to move into it while I'm at work?  Am I an "absentee owner"?  In all your posts I have seen, you have yet to answer the basic question.  It is a simple and fundamental question you keep ignoring or avoiding.  How long must someone be gone before someone else can claim their shit?  Can I leave for a couple of hours to go grocery shopping?  For a full day to work?  Can I leave on vacation for two weeks?  How long must I be gone before its ok for someone to steal my house?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 15, 2013, 09:27:14 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 10:01:09 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 10:06:12 PM
Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 10:11:16 PM
Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.

I answered your question on the other thread.   https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238 (https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238)


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 10:24:47 PM
Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.

I answered your question on the other thread.   https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238 (https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238)

I really don't think that you did, particularly not the specific question about my cabin.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 15, 2013, 10:45:06 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 06:15:10 AM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 16, 2013, 10:35:12 AM
Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 10:47:23 AM
Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 16, 2013, 11:01:48 AM
Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.

Try reading more than one post.  The stupidity of this thread is annoying me. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 11:08:53 AM
Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.

Try reading more than one post.  The stupidity of this thread is annoying me. 

You have not posted anywhere in this thread, how you believe ownership of unowned property happens.  You may have posted it somewhere else, but you didn't post it here.  Talk about absurd.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 11:59:50 AM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 12:08:08 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

You know you're being ridiculous; right?  You are just describing a different version of democracy which everybody decries.  Plus if the people in the area do not accept the claim of the DRO, then their claim is moot; no matter how many organizations they have to agree with their claim.  You are creating a government, from DROs.  If people don't recognize the DRO then the DRO will just use force against them; yup, sounds like a government.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 12:16:50 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 12:18:15 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

You know you're being ridiculous; right?  You are just describing a different version of democracy which everybody decries.  Plus if the people in the area do not accept the claim of the DRO, then their claim is moot; no matter how many organizations they have to agree with their claim.  You are creating a government, from DROs.  If people don't recognize the DRO then the DRO will just use force against them; yup, sounds like a government.

You're the fool who apparently thinks that people can never leave their properties to go the store, go to work, take a vacation, etc.  In this thread, you are the ridiculous one.  

A plurality of competing DROs does not constitute a government, since a government is a coercive monopoly.

I suspect that you're just one of those freeloading types who thinks that he's entitled to steal other people's things, who justifies his amoral position by playing absurd word games.  


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 12:19:40 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 12:30:50 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 12:49:14 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 12:57:35 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 01:47:21 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.

Hell yes, proportional violence would be used to defend property. 

(1) What part of "stealing is wrong" is not sinking in?

(2) Why are you hung up on land?  Why aren't you also demanding the right of "the majority" to steal other classes of things?  If land is fair game for "the majority" to steal if they assert that it doesn't belong to you, then why isn't it fair game for them to steal your car, computer, books, and other possessions?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Syock on September 16, 2013, 02:04:47 PM
You have not posted anywhere in this thread, how you believe ownership of unowned property happens.  You may have posted it somewhere else, but you didn't post it here.  Talk about absurd.

You are having the same argument in two threads.  Do I really have to post the same thing over and over for you?   I guess since I have to keep telling you to read that I do. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.

Hell yes, proportional violence would be used to defend property. 

(1) What part of "stealing is wrong" is not sinking in?

(2) Why are you hung up on land?  Why aren't you also demanding the right of "the majority" to steal other classes of things?  If land is fair game for "the majority" to steal if they assert that it doesn't belong to you, then why isn't it fair game for them to steal your car, computer, books, and other possessions?

Ownership without possession is nonsense.  Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  If someone has possession of something, then it is hard to justify accepting another person's claim of ownership.

If we are living without government, then the acceptance of the possessors claim is the only legitimate form of determining ownership.  If we have a few people living on a property -with or without any-kind of paper for justification- and then there is another individual with a paper and a group of individuals with guns claiming that the property belongs to the individual not on the property, how do you suppose any observing third party can legitimately determine who the actual owner is.  Papers can be forged, and just because a group of people have guns and are threatening the people on the property doesn't actually make the claim any more valid.  Unless you want to open that can of worms whereby any group of people with guns determines reality; it becomes quite clear that either one must be in possession of the property for any acceptable claim of ownership, or one believes in armed individuals rule.

As far as every-other type of property is concerned, pretty much everybody already accepts that without possession the claim of ownership with a government is very difficult and without government it would be impossible.  Because any record from a source not accepted by the overall community could be argued to be fake.  Since there would be no universal force to be accepted by the population, then there will be all kinds of disputes.  Nobody will actually have legitimacy -except the person in possession, because it will be one party's word over another party's word -with or without papers.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 02:22:43 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.

Hell yes, proportional violence would be used to defend property. 

(1) What part of "stealing is wrong" is not sinking in?

(2) Why are you hung up on land?  Why aren't you also demanding the right of "the majority" to steal other classes of things?  If land is fair game for "the majority" to steal if they assert that it doesn't belong to you, then why isn't it fair game for them to steal your car, computer, books, and other possessions?

Ownership without possession is nonsense.  Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  If someone has possession of something, then it is hard to justify accepting another person's claim of ownership.

If we are living without government, then the acceptance of the possessors claim is the only legitimate form of determining ownership.  If we have a few people living on a property -with or without any-kind of paper for justification- and then there is another individual with a paper and a group of individuals with guns claiming that the property belongs to the individual not on the property, how do you suppose any observing third party can legitimately determine who the actual owner is.  Papers can be forged, and just because a group of people have guns and are threatening the people on the property doesn't actually make the claim any more valid.  Unless you want to open that can of worms whereby any group of people with guns determines reality; it becomes quite clear that either one must be in possession of the property for any acceptable claim of ownership, or one believes in armed individuals rule.

As far as every-other type of property is concerned, pretty much everybody already accepts that without possession the claim of ownership with a government is very difficult and without government it would be impossible.  Because any record from a source not accepted by the overall community could be argued to be fake.  Since there would be no universal force to be accepted by the population, then there will be all kinds of disputes.  Nobody will actually have legitimacy -except the person in possession, because it will be one party's word over another party's word -with or without papers.

DROs and arbiters would exist to settle disputes (a DRO is a dispute resolution organization).  There are numerous techniques that are beyond the scope of this thread to verify the authenticity and date of both hard copy and digital records.  Numerous, widespread copies of a property title that maps a given property (with the boundary precisely specified) to a given individual (specified by facial photographs, fingerprints, and retina patterns) that are reliably dated, combined with extensive evidence of long-term possession by the individual of the property in question (if it was a summer cabin, then videos of recreational activities taken on the "absentee" seasonal property would be a good example of additional proof of long-term, repeated use).  In the modern age, the issue that you're raising can easily be solved without a government.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 03:10:02 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.

Hell yes, proportional violence would be used to defend property. 

(1) What part of "stealing is wrong" is not sinking in?

(2) Why are you hung up on land?  Why aren't you also demanding the right of "the majority" to steal other classes of things?  If land is fair game for "the majority" to steal if they assert that it doesn't belong to you, then why isn't it fair game for them to steal your car, computer, books, and other possessions?

Ownership without possession is nonsense.  Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  If someone has possession of something, then it is hard to justify accepting another person's claim of ownership.

If we are living without government, then the acceptance of the possessors claim is the only legitimate form of determining ownership.  If we have a few people living on a property -with or without any-kind of paper for justification- and then there is another individual with a paper and a group of individuals with guns claiming that the property belongs to the individual not on the property, how do you suppose any observing third party can legitimately determine who the actual owner is.  Papers can be forged, and just because a group of people have guns and are threatening the people on the property doesn't actually make the claim any more valid.  Unless you want to open that can of worms whereby any group of people with guns determines reality; it becomes quite clear that either one must be in possession of the property for any acceptable claim of ownership, or one believes in armed individuals rule.

As far as every-other type of property is concerned, pretty much everybody already accepts that without possession the claim of ownership with a government is very difficult and without government it would be impossible.  Because any record from a source not accepted by the overall community could be argued to be fake.  Since there would be no universal force to be accepted by the population, then there will be all kinds of disputes.  Nobody will actually have legitimacy -except the person in possession, because it will be one party's word over another party's word -with or without papers.

DROs and arbiters would exist to settle disputes (a DRO is a dispute resolution organization).  There are numerous techniques that are beyond the scope of this thread to verify the authenticity and date of both hard copy and digital records.  Numerous, widespread copies of a property title that maps a given property (with the boundary precisely specified) to a given individual (specified by facial photographs, fingerprints, and retina patterns) that are reliably dated, combined with extensive evidence of long-term possession by the individual of the property in question (if it was a summer cabin, then videos of recreational activities taken on the "absentee" seasonal property would be a good example of additional proof of long-term, repeated use).  In the modern age, the issue that you're raising can easily be solved without a government.

Do you really think the general public is going to deal with all of that?  Everybody likes being fingerprinted, don't they?  Any organization which has that amount of information on anybody, would most-likely be abused just like government agents who also have access to large amounts of data on people.  Also, any dispute would have to be handled by an independent third party agreed upon by both parties.  If you pay for a specific DRO, who do you think would accept that ruling?  What most of what you are talking about would have greater privacy concerns than we currently have now; most people would not agree to that.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 03:20:59 PM
You have not posted anywhere in this thread, how you believe ownership of unowned property happens.  You may have posted it somewhere else, but you didn't post it here.  Talk about absurd.

You are having the same argument in two threads.  Do I really have to post the same thing over and over for you?   I guess since I have to keep telling you to read that I do. 

Are you talking about this?

Quote
Homesteading only makes sense to me when applied to land that has no owner.  I think that only would apply to future man-made land beyond national claims, and stuff in space at this point. 

That doesn't explain why absentee ownership is invalid for first ownership.  One can only interpret all of these non-explanations -from the absentee ownership crowd- to mean that you want to validate something -which you think you'll benefit from in the future- which otherwise you think is invalid.

If absentee ownership is legitimate, then why isn't it legitimate for first ownership?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 03:47:28 PM
So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.



I do not recognize your assertion that I'm advocating representative democracy.  There will be no elections, and no coercive monopoly on the use of force.  Of course the rights of the individual come first.  Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy.  People who fail to use DROs will be at a disadvantage, but that's their prerogative.

Do you realize that you're advocating shut-in-ism on a massive scale? 



You claim that individuals are more important, but that only applies when the individual agrees with you and your DRO.  If an individual apposes you and your DRO, then you will use force and violence to force the individual to comply.  Also, you are suggesting that people should be forced -similar to the way we are forced to pay taxes- to use a DRO or they are to suffer for not doing so.  What most are propagating is Economic Democracy, whereby people are forced -in a manner of speaking- to suffer the will of the majority.

Hell yes, proportional violence would be used to defend property. 

(1) What part of "stealing is wrong" is not sinking in?

(2) Why are you hung up on land?  Why aren't you also demanding the right of "the majority" to steal other classes of things?  If land is fair game for "the majority" to steal if they assert that it doesn't belong to you, then why isn't it fair game for them to steal your car, computer, books, and other possessions?

Ownership without possession is nonsense.  Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  If someone has possession of something, then it is hard to justify accepting another person's claim of ownership.

If we are living without government, then the acceptance of the possessors claim is the only legitimate form of determining ownership.  If we have a few people living on a property -with or without any-kind of paper for justification- and then there is another individual with a paper and a group of individuals with guns claiming that the property belongs to the individual not on the property, how do you suppose any observing third party can legitimately determine who the actual owner is.  Papers can be forged, and just because a group of people have guns and are threatening the people on the property doesn't actually make the claim any more valid.  Unless you want to open that can of worms whereby any group of people with guns determines reality; it becomes quite clear that either one must be in possession of the property for any acceptable claim of ownership, or one believes in armed individuals rule.

As far as every-other type of property is concerned, pretty much everybody already accepts that without possession the claim of ownership with a government is very difficult and without government it would be impossible.  Because any record from a source not accepted by the overall community could be argued to be fake.  Since there would be no universal force to be accepted by the population, then there will be all kinds of disputes.  Nobody will actually have legitimacy -except the person in possession, because it will be one party's word over another party's word -with or without papers.

DROs and arbiters would exist to settle disputes (a DRO is a dispute resolution organization).  There are numerous techniques that are beyond the scope of this thread to verify the authenticity and date of both hard copy and digital records.  Numerous, widespread copies of a property title that maps a given property (with the boundary precisely specified) to a given individual (specified by facial photographs, fingerprints, and retina patterns) that are reliably dated, combined with extensive evidence of long-term possession by the individual of the property in question (if it was a summer cabin, then videos of recreational activities taken on the "absentee" seasonal property would be a good example of additional proof of long-term, repeated use).  In the modern age, the issue that you're raising can easily be solved without a government.

Do you really think the general public is going to deal with all of that?  Everybody likes being fingerprinted, don't they?  Any organization which has that amount of information on anybody, would most-likely be abused just like government agents who also have access to large amounts of data on people.  Also, any dispute would have to be handled by an independent third party agreed upon by both parties.  If you pay for a specific DRO, who do you think would accept that ruling?  What most of what you are talking about would have greater privacy concerns than we currently have now; most people would not agree to that.

People can either have property reliably linked to them through biometric means, or they can simply use a name that essentially anyone (at least of the same sex) can copy and claim as their own, and open the door to a never-ending succession of impostors who try to steal their property. 

Rulings would be accepted by all parties to the contract that the arbiter ruled on. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 03:51:38 PM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 06:29:24 PM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  

You seem to have a problem.  You say that there is no inconsistancy
and yet two different types of property ownership need to exist for your
philosophy to work; and not that there is an option of using one form
of property ownership or the other, but one type of ownership can
only exist before the other type of property ownership could be
legitimate.  This should really identify a flaw in property ownership.

When asked to explain why the need for this peicewise function for
property ownership, nobody answers. 

I suppose we could look to see the
pros and cons of each type of property ownership for the instancese which
your philossphy denies the type of ownership its ability to exist.  So,
we could look to see the cons of Homesteading after the intitial ownership,
which would be that any land not being used could be Homesteaded.  This
would cause serious problems for ones ability to be an absentee land owner.
Absentee land ownership wouldn't work for the initial ownership of a peice
of property because, if one could just claim land then one could claim any
and all peices of land unspoken for.  So, to solve the proplem for people
who don't actually want to live on their property, people created
the peicewise property ownership function; quit inconsistant.

You claim that you don't want rulers, but in reallity you want to choose your rulers;
however, the market -economic democracy- will limit your choices, and as we all
know when we leave things up to the general population, the outcome is not good.
It's not like the iPad is the greatest tablet computer, or that Windows is the best
computer Operating System.  Could you imagine how good the protection systems will be
when the number of customers determines what agencies are available?  The same
could be said for DRO's, Insurances, and such; unles -that is- that you don't want to
force the people to use the services and in which case most of those industries
wouldn't exist, or would be severly limited in their services.  If DRO's and
protection services are limited, then absentee land ownership is in peril; so, I
suppose forcing people to utilize those services -which they may not want- would
be the only solution to preserve absentee land ownership.

Also, your previous claim of having all kinds of records and videos as proof of
ownership, makes me think that you are unfamiliar with the vulnerabilites of
computer systems.  If video is proof then couldn't it be possible for someone
to video themselves on the property at times when the supposed owner isn't there;
thereby creating a video log of being on the property as well.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  

You seem to have a problem.  You say that there is no inconsistancy
and yet two different types of property ownership need to exist for your
philosophy to work; and not that there is an option of using one form
of property ownership or the other, but one type of ownership can
only exist before the other type of property ownership could be
legitimate.  This should really identify a flaw in property ownership.

Once again, we are advocating the current system of property ownership, wherein some forms of ownership, such as the ownership of land, is proved with reliable documentation (either receipts or land titles), whereby the enforcement of property rights is made via a system of competing businesses rather than a coercive monopoly.  Since we have a problem with how land property rights are enforced, and not with the philosophical pillars upon which land property rights are based, I fail to see what you're not getting.  I will summarize in bold, and then maybe it will sink in with you:

We agree with most of the property rights that exist in the current system (with exceptions such as intellectual property for many of us), we simply want them to be enforced by competing businesses and not by a government.

Quote
When asked to explain why the need for this peicewise function for
property ownership, nobody answers.

Explain how what we're advocating is a "piecewise function for property ownership".  

Quote
I suppose we could look to see the
pros and cons of each type of property ownership for the instancese which
your philossphy denies the type of ownership its ability to exist.  So,
we could look to see the cons of Homesteading after the intitial ownership,
which would be that any land not being used could be Homesteaded.  This
would cause serious problems for ones ability to be an absentee land owner.
Absentee land ownership wouldn't work for the initial ownership of a peice
of property because, if one could just claim land then one could claim any
and all peices of land unspoken for.  So, to solve the proplem for people
who don't actually want to live on their property, people created
the peicewise property ownership function; quit inconsistant.

There is no inconsistency.  There are numerous other examples of "absentee" ownership that we respect, that you simply ignore because it suits your agenda.  For example, when someone parks his car and then walks away from it (either into a business, or on a long nature path in some park, as but two examples), the person clearly owns the car even though that person is not always inside of, or within sight of, said car.  Do you maintain otherwise?

Quote
You claim that you don't want rulers, but in reallity you want to choose your rulers;
however, the market -economic democracy- will limit your choices, and as we all
know when we leave things up to the general population, the outcome is not good.
It's not like the iPad is the greatest tablet computer, or that Windows is the best
computer Operating System.  Could you imagine how good the protection systems will be
when the number of customers determines what agencies are available?  The same
could be said for DRO's, Insurances, and such; unles -that is- that you don't want to
force the people to use the services and in which case most of those industries
wouldn't exist, or would be severly limited in their services.  If DRO's and
protection services are limited, then absentee land ownership is in peril; so, I
suppose forcing people to utilize those services -which they may not want- would
be the only solution to preserve absentee land ownership.

The DROs are not rulers.  In the free market, if there is a demand for a certain level of quality, then it will probably be met by someone.  It is disingenuous for you to point to examples of shoddiness from the current system of crony capitalism and then claim that businesses in anarcho-capitalism, such as DROs and insurance companies, would suffer from similar flaws.  

Quote
Also, your previous claim of having all kinds of records and videos as proof of
ownership, makes me think that you are unfamiliar with the vulnerabilites of
computer systems.  If video is proof then couldn't it be possible for someone
to video themselves on the property at times when the supposed owner isn't there;
thereby creating a video log of being on the property as well.

That person would have a difficult time creating a widespread web of records from various DROs that a given property was widely recognized as belonging to him as of a certain date.  That person's videos would merely become evidence of tresspassing.  


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 16, 2013, 09:32:00 PM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  

Once again, we are advocating the current system of property ownership, wherein some forms of ownership, such as the ownership of land, is proved with reliable documentation (either receipts or land titles), whereby the enforcement of property rights is made via a system of competing businesses rather than a coercive monopoly.  Since we have a problem with how land property rights are enforced, and not with the philosophical pillars upon which land property rights are based, I fail to see what you're not getting.  I will summarize in bold, and then maybe it will sink in with you:

We agree with most of the property rights that exist in the current system (with exceptions such as intellectual property for many of us), we simply want them to be enforced by competing businesses and not by a government.

There is no inconsistency.  There are numerous other examples of "absentee" ownership that we respect, that you simply ignore because it suits your agenda.  For example, when someone parks his car and then walks away from it (either into a business, or on a long nature path in some park, as but two examples), the person clearly owns the car even though that person is not always inside of, or within sight of, said car.  Do you maintain otherwise?

The DROs are not rulers.  In the free market, if there is a demand for a certain level of quality, then it will probably be met by someone.  It is disingenuous for you to point to examples of shoddiness from the current system of crony capitalism and then claim that businesses in anarcho-capitalism, such as DROs and insurance companies, would suffer from similar flaws.  

That person would have a difficult time creating a widespread web of records from various DROs that a given property was widely recognized as belonging to him as of a certain date.  That person's videos would merely become evidence of tresspassing.  

My only caveat with regard to accepting the present system of land/wealth ownership is that much of it was acquired through government coercion, and that might need to be addressed in transition.  Other than that, I think we're in agreement.  You cannot run a modern, mechanized society on the premise that "It's only yours if you're standing next to it."  The idea is absurd.  It makes as much sense as staking a claim by peeing all around the perimeter.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  

Once again, we are advocating the current system of property ownership, wherein some forms of ownership, such as the ownership of land, is proved with reliable documentation (either receipts or land titles), whereby the enforcement of property rights is made via a system of competing businesses rather than a coercive monopoly.  Since we have a problem with how land property rights are enforced, and not with the philosophical pillars upon which land property rights are based, I fail to see what you're not getting.  I will summarize in bold, and then maybe it will sink in with you:

We agree with most of the property rights that exist in the current system (with exceptions such as intellectual property for many of us), we simply want them to be enforced by competing businesses and not by a government.

There is no inconsistency.  There are numerous other examples of "absentee" ownership that we respect, that you simply ignore because it suits your agenda.  For example, when someone parks his car and then walks away from it (either into a business, or on a long nature path in some park, as but two examples), the person clearly owns the car even though that person is not always inside of, or within sight of, said car.  Do you maintain otherwise?

The DROs are not rulers.  In the free market, if there is a demand for a certain level of quality, then it will probably be met by someone.  It is disingenuous for you to point to examples of shoddiness from the current system of crony capitalism and then claim that businesses in anarcho-capitalism, such as DROs and insurance companies, would suffer from similar flaws.  

That person would have a difficult time creating a widespread web of records from various DROs that a given property was widely recognized as belonging to him as of a certain date.  That person's videos would merely become evidence of tresspassing.  

My only caveat with regard to accepting the present system of land/wealth ownership is that much of it was acquired through government coercion, and that might need to be addressed in transition.

Fair enough, but there could be complications with that process.  For example, would the descendants of crony capitalists be forced to give up that portion of their wealth that was obtained unethically by their ancestors? 

Quote
Other than that, I think we're in agreement.  You cannot run a modern, mechanized society on the premise that "It's only yours if you're standing next to it."  The idea is absurd.  It makes as much sense as staking a claim by peeing all around the perimeter.

Indeed.  Is this view sincerely-held by large numbers of anarchists, or are those who profess it generally statists intent on using word games to undermine anarcho-capitalism? 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 16, 2013, 10:54:26 PM
I don't think addressing the old theft would need to be that complicated.  Default would be in favor of the present, recognized owners.  If something was stolen from you, or from your Grandad, through corporate-government cronyism, you would need to make that case to a competent court, preferably one agreed to by the descendants of the robber barrons. Far more complicated would be the disposition of those lands "owned" directly by the government.

I can't answer your second question, because I don't know all that many anarchists, personally.  I could almost see Agrarian_Agorist's argument as a false flag operation.  If he's attempting to convince me that I need a government to protect my property from him, he's doing a pretty good job.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: MAM on September 16, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
I don't think addressing the old theft would need to be that complicated.  Default would be in favor of the present, recognized owners.  If something was stolen from you, or from your Grandad, through corporate-government cronyism, you would need to make that case to a competent court, preferably one agreed to by the descendants of the robber barrons. Far more complicated would be the disposition of those lands "owned" directly by the government.

I can't answer your second question, because I don't know all that many anarchists, personally.  I could almost see Agrarian_Agorist's argument as a false flag operation.  If he's attempting to convince me that I need a government to protect my property from him, he's doing a pretty good job.

Get rid of government land and let people take whatever they want. Current corporations can fracture as they will when they no longer have the State to lean on.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 16, 2013, 11:58:54 PM
I don't think addressing the old theft would need to be that complicated.  Default would be in favor of the present, recognized owners.  If something was stolen from you, or from your Grandad, through corporate-government cronyism, you would need to make that case to a competent court, preferably one agreed to by the descendants of the robber barrons. Far more complicated would be the disposition of those lands "owned" directly by the government.

I think that it is likely that governments will sell "public" lands (including roads :) ) as their debts spiral out of control.  This can be be part of the basis for a smooth transition to a voluntary society. 

Quote
I can't answer your second question, because I don't know all that many anarchists, personally.  I could almost see Agrarian_Agorist's argument as a false flag operation.  If he's attempting to convince me that I need a government to protect my property from him, he's doing a pretty good job.

Wouldn't a private defense agency (e.g., a DRO) be likely to do a better job?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 17, 2013, 08:19:13 AM
Agrarian_Agorist, I think that we're talking past each other.  It seems that your complaint is that we are advocating that certain functions that are currently performed by the coercive monopoly known as government (in this case, land property recognition and defense) instead be performed by competing businesses.  However, that is precisely what anarcho-capitalism entails.

There is no contradiction on our end.  We are being completely consistent.  Why are you posting on an anarcho-capitalist message board if you oppose anarcho-capitalism?  

You seem to have a problem.  You say that there is no inconsistancy
and yet two different types of property ownership need to exist for your
philosophy to work; and not that there is an option of using one form
of property ownership or the other, but one type of ownership can
only exist before the other type of property ownership could be
legitimate.  This should really identify a flaw in property ownership.

Once again, we are advocating the current system of property ownership, wherein some forms of ownership, such as the ownership of land, is proved with reliable documentation (either receipts or land titles), whereby the enforcement of property rights is made via a system of competing businesses rather than a coercive monopoly.  Since we have a problem with how land property rights are enforced, and not with the philosophical pillars upon which land property rights are based, I fail to see what you're not getting.  I will summarize in bold, and then maybe it will sink in with you:

We agree with most of the property rights that exist in the current system (with exceptions such as intellectual property for many of us), we simply want them to be enforced by competing businesses and not by a government.

Quote
When asked to explain why the need for this peicewise function for
property ownership, nobody answers.

Explain how what we're advocating is a "piecewise function for property ownership".  

Quote
I suppose we could look to see the
pros and cons of each type of property ownership for the instancese which
your philossphy denies the type of ownership its ability to exist.  So,
we could look to see the cons of Homesteading after the intitial ownership,
which would be that any land not being used could be Homesteaded.  This
would cause serious problems for ones ability to be an absentee land owner.
Absentee land ownership wouldn't work for the initial ownership of a peice
of property because, if one could just claim land then one could claim any
and all peices of land unspoken for.  So, to solve the proplem for people
who don't actually want to live on their property, people created
the peicewise property ownership function; quit inconsistant.

There is no inconsistency.  There are numerous other examples of "absentee" ownership that we respect, that you simply ignore because it suits your agenda.  For example, when someone parks his car and then walks away from it (either into a business, or on a long nature path in some park, as but two examples), the person clearly owns the car even though that person is not always inside of, or within sight of, said car.  Do you maintain otherwise?

Quote
You claim that you don't want rulers, but in reallity you want to choose your rulers;
however, the market -economic democracy- will limit your choices, and as we all
know when we leave things up to the general population, the outcome is not good.
It's not like the iPad is the greatest tablet computer, or that Windows is the best
computer Operating System.  Could you imagine how good the protection systems will be
when the number of customers determines what agencies are available?  The same
could be said for DRO's, Insurances, and such; unles -that is- that you don't want to
force the people to use the services and in which case most of those industries
wouldn't exist, or would be severly limited in their services.  If DRO's and
protection services are limited, then absentee land ownership is in peril; so, I
suppose forcing people to utilize those services -which they may not want- would
be the only solution to preserve absentee land ownership.

The DROs are not rulers.  In the free market, if there is a demand for a certain level of quality, then it will probably be met by someone.  It is disingenuous for you to point to examples of shoddiness from the current system of crony capitalism and then claim that businesses in anarcho-capitalism, such as DROs and insurance companies, would suffer from similar flaws.  

Quote
Also, your previous claim of having all kinds of records and videos as proof of
ownership, makes me think that you are unfamiliar with the vulnerabilites of
computer systems.  If video is proof then couldn't it be possible for someone
to video themselves on the property at times when the supposed owner isn't there;
thereby creating a video log of being on the property as well.

That person would have a difficult time creating a widespread web of records from various DROs that a given property was widely recognized as belonging to him as of a certain date.  That person's videos would merely become evidence of tresspassing.  

Quote
Explain how what we're advocating is a "piecewise function for property ownership".

I already explained how property ownership in your utopia is piecewise; but let me say it more simply.
Property ownership is a function, this function is piecewise due to the fact that for the first piece
we have one type of ownership, but this ends and a new type of ownership exists -which didn't exist
before, and the previous type of ownership no longer exists.  Therefore you need two different types of
ownership to create one property ownership function.

Quote
We agree with most of the property rights that exist in the current system (with exceptions
such as intellectual property for many of us), we simply want them to be enforced by competing
businesses and not by a government.

You do realize that the only reason we have the laws of property ownership which we have today is
due to the fact that there is a non-voluntary universal force called government which threatens to
fine, cage, or kill anybody who doesn't accept it; right?  Without the universality which government
forces on everybody then every action is voluntary including dispute resolutions.  Therefore, if
one party doesn't agree on going to a DRO -let a lone a particular DRO- then there is no legitimate
way of forcing that particular party to comply.

I'm sorry but what you and those like you want is a government; for it would be the only way for
universality to exist which would be required for your property laws.

Also, you make it sound like you could never leave ones property or car or anything; you are being
facetious so you can appeal to an emotional trigger of people.  Before modern property laws, people
left their homes and also, they left their horses outside of different stores and such, and the
frequency of theft was almost nothing.

There is a difference between land property and other kinds of property which you are refusing to
accept.  People don't steal unless it is because of one of two reasons: 1)it is easier to steal
then it is to work and purchase, 2)they are desperate.  Both of which are solved with abolishing
government.

However, when one method of land ownership is Homesteading, then any property which is not in use
can be Homesteaded; this is why people of your kind suggest that Homesteading should only be accepted
for the initial ownership of property, to prevent people from Homesteading other people's absentee
ownership property. The problem arises with this when an individual who owns a property dies and has no
family and hasn't willed the property to anybody; thereby reverting the property back to unowned, and
therefore requires Homesteading all-over-again.  This scenario therefore leaves the possibility of Homesteading
an absentee owners unoccupied property, because Homesteading -therefore- must be accepted outside of
just for initial ownership claims.

So, if you are adamant about absentee ownership then you need a government to force compliance, less
you want to abandon Homesteading altogether and suffer the cons of absentee ownership claims for
non-homesteaded property, like the Universe, or Mars and such.  However, even if you and your kind
did decide to abandon Homesteading, you would still need the vast amount of the population to accept
it; and you still wouldn't have a universal force -which would be accepted- to use against those who
appose you.


Quote
It is disingenuous for you to point to examples of shoddiness from the current system of crony
capitalism and then claim that businesses in anarcho-capitalism, such as DROs and insurance companies,
would suffer from similar flaws.

You do realize that people by iPads of their own free-will, don't you?  Microsoft being able to install
its OS in the major brands of computer manufacturers computers(the right of businesses to cooperate) is not
illegal under AnCap, so it would still happen.  Even if the companies changed, the value in the argument isn't
in the companies, but in the fact that groups of people make bad choices which is why democracy is a bad idea. Under democracy -of any-kind- the least common denominator is the most popular with the masses.  This is why the worst of all possible choices is always on top in a democracy, or viewer choice or whatever type of
mass determination one wants to identify. This is why when needing the acceptance of the people, one is better-off keeping the number of items few, simple and intuitive; otherwise you end-up with Communism.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 17, 2013, 01:32:01 PM
Quote
I already explained how property ownership in your utopia is piecewise; but let me say it more simply.
Property ownership is a function, this function is piecewise due to the fact that for the first piece
we have one type of ownership, but this ends and a new type of ownership exists -which didn't exist
before, and the previous type of ownership no longer exists.  Therefore you need two different types of
ownership to create one property ownership function.

The distinction is in your mind.  All property ownership has a degree of absenteeism to it, which is why your assertion about piecewise property rights is nonsense.  Even in your insane, utterly-unworkable vision of how the world would work, wherein everyone lives on land that they never leave, some of your personal property will always be not only outside your reach, but also outside your line of sight.  When you're tending to your crops on your necessarily-large estate, the clothes in your bedroom closet become absentee property.  Afterall, some interloper could have crossed your perimeter fence, or tunneled underneath it, and you and your family will hardly be able to simultaneously monitor every nook and cranny of your property.  Therefore, according to your premises, some other person would have every right to claim the absentee personal property, such as gold, silver, books, electronics, clothes, etc., that you have cruelly kept from other people.  Unless every last thing that you own is always within reach of you (thereby making ownership of a house on your land-not to mention the enormous length of fence needed to enclose said land-impossible), you believe in absentee ownership, and therefore it is you, and not us, who is being self-contradictory.  I have no doubt that you'll want to hand wave away these objections; you think that you can undermine anarcho-capitalism by attempting to show that, taken to the extreme, it is self-contradictory, but it is your ideology that does not hold up when examined in the extreme.  I dare you to explain your forms of absentee ownership are more justified than absentee land ownership.

Quote
You do realize that the only reason we have the laws of property ownership which we have today is
due to the fact that there is a non-voluntary universal force called government which threatens to
fine, cage, or kill anybody who doesn't accept it; right?  Without the universality which government
forces on everybody then every action is voluntary including dispute resolutions.  Therefore, if
one party doesn't agree on going to a DRO -let a lone a particular DRO- then there is no legitimate
way of forcing that particular party to comply.

No, I do not recognize this.  Evidence suggests that agriculture predates the rise of the state.  Therefore, there was a period during which there was a recognized legitimacy to a farmer's exclusive right to the land that he used to grow crops, without a government promoting this legitimacy and defending said land. 

In an anarcho-capitalist society, an individual squatting on land that is universally recogniuzed by the various DROs as belonging to another individual would be removed by that individual's DRO (or by the individual himself).

Quote
I'm sorry but what you and those like you want is a government; for it would be the only way for
universality to exist which would be required for your property laws.

Competing DROs no more constitute a government than Chrysler, Ford, GM, etc. constitute one auto manufacturer. 

Quote
Also, you make it sound like you could never leave ones property or car or anything; you are being
facetious so you can appeal to an emotional trigger of people.  Before modern property laws, people
left their homes and also, they left their horses outside of different stores and such, and the
frequency of theft was almost nothing.

You are now trying to have your cake and eat it.  You have clearly stated, numerous times, that when one leaves one's land, one abandons one's legitimate claim to that land.  Now you're essentially saying that that isn't what you mean. 

Quote
There is a difference between land property and other kinds of property which you are refusing to
accept.  People don't steal unless it is because of one of two reasons: 1)it is easier to steal
then it is to work and purchase, 2)they are desperate.  Both of which are solved with abolishing
government.

However, when one method of land ownership is Homesteading, then any property which is not in use
can be Homesteaded; this is why people of your kind suggest that Homesteading should only be accepted
for the initial ownership of property, to prevent people from Homesteading other people's absentee
ownership property. The problem arises with this when an individual who owns a property dies and has no
family and hasn't willed the property to anybody; thereby reverting the property back to unowned, and
therefore requires Homesteading all-over-again.  This scenario therefore leaves the possibility of Homesteading
an absentee owners unoccupied property, because Homesteading -therefore- must be accepted outside of
just for initial ownership claims.

People "of my kind" have no problem with homesteading truly abandoned property, such as in the case of a documented death with no heirs, or when the property owner has been uncontactable for an agreed-upon amount of time, after which the property becomes unowned.  What we have a problem with are assertions that absentee land ownership is invalid, combined with immature, steadfast refusals to clearly state what length of absence constitutes "absentee ownership". 

Quote
So, if you are adamant about absentee ownership then you need a government to force compliance, less
you want to abandon Homesteading altogether and suffer the cons of absentee ownership claims for
non-homesteaded property, like the Universe, or Mars and such.  However, even if you and your kind
did decide to abandon Homesteading, you would still need the vast amount of the population to accept
it; and you still wouldn't have a universal force -which would be accepted- to use against those who
appose you.


Once again, you are absolutely wrong in your assertion that a government is needed to enforce absentee property ownership rights.  It has been clearly explained to you how such rights could be enforced in a voluntary society, and, as I pointed out earlier in this post, the notion of land property rights predates government, as the farmer's neighbors no doubt voluntarily respected his claim to the land that he used to farm. 

Also, you are an utter retard if you think that some kook claiming spaces that he cannot physically travel to, extract resources from, or interact with any meaningful way (bouncing electromagnetic energy, in the form of radio or a laser, off of a nearby celestial body being the only form of interaction that I can think of that would conceivably be at the disposal of someone with moderate wealth) bothers me or any other reasonable person.  Why should vacuous property claims like this bother us?  Do you realize that most people could care less about the nonsense claims made by people in insane asylums?  Therefore, I am utterly baffled why you think that any of us cares about your claim to the entire universe sans the earth and its artificial satellites. 

Quote
You do realize that people by [sic] iPads of their own free-will, don't you?  Microsoft being able to install
its OS in the major brands of computer manufacturers computers(the right of businesses to cooperate) is not
illegal under AnCap, so it would still happen.  Even if the companies changed, the value in the argument isn't
in the companies, but in the fact that groups of people make bad choices which is why democracy is a bad idea. Under democracy -of any-kind- the least common denominator is the most popular with the masses.  This is why the worst of all possible choices is always on top in a democracy, or viewer choice or whatever type of
mass determination one wants to identify. This is why when needing the acceptance of the people, one is better-off keeping the number of items few, simple and intuitive; otherwise you end-up with Communism.

People buy things of their own free will in the context of the limited selection brought forth by crony capitalism.  Both Apple and Microsoft have received enormous favors from the government.  While the free market has a distant similarity to democracy, the free market is not based on "one adult, one vote" but rather "one unit of currency, one vote".  The less enlightened, less intelligent, less wealthy cookie cutter herd-like members of the population will have less ability to sway things than the more enlightened, more intelligent, more wealthy, independent members of the population. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: victim77 on September 17, 2013, 03:54:00 PM
I think that it is likely that governments will sell "public" lands (including roads :) ) as their debts spiral out of control.  This can be be part of the basis for a smooth transition to a voluntary society. 
That actually sounds terrible. Who is going to get the best deal for this government property? Wal Mart, Goldman, Monsanto, Exxon, ect. We will have to move in to those lands immediately to prevent post government ripples in the market


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 17, 2013, 03:57:16 PM
Quote
I already explained how property ownership in your utopia is piecewise; but let me say it more simply.
Property ownership is a function, this function is piecewise due to the fact that for the first piece
we have one type of ownership, but this ends and a new type of ownership exists -which didn't exist
before, and the previous type of ownership no longer exists.  Therefore you need two different types of
ownership to create one property ownership function.

The distinction is in your mind.  All property ownership has a degree of absenteeism to it, which is why your assertion about piecewise property rights is nonsense.  Even in your insane, utterly-unworkable vision of how the world would work, wherein everyone lives on land that they never leave, some of your personal property will always be not only outside your reach, but also outside your line of sight.  When you're tending to your crops on your necessarily-large estate, the clothes in your bedroom closet become absentee property.  Afterall, some interloper could have crossed your perimeter fence, or tunneled underneath it, and you and your family will hardly be able to simultaneously monitor every nook and cranny of your property.  Therefore, according to your premises, some other person would have every right to claim the absentee personal property, such as gold, silver, books, electronics, clothes, etc., that you have cruelly kept from other people.  Unless every last thing that you own is always within reach of you (thereby making ownership of a house on your land-not to mention the enormous length of fence needed to enclose said land-impossible), you believe in absentee ownership, and therefore it is you, and not us, who is being self-contradictory.  I have no doubt that you'll want to hand wave away these objections; you think that you can undermine anarcho-capitalism by attempting to show that, taken to the extreme, it is self-contradictory, but it is your ideology that does not hold up when examined in the extreme.  I dare you to explain your forms of absentee ownership are more justified than absentee land ownership.

Quote
You do realize that the only reason we have the laws of property ownership which we have today is
due to the fact that there is a non-voluntary universal force called government which threatens to
fine, cage, or kill anybody who doesn't accept it; right?  Without the universality which government
forces on everybody then every action is voluntary including dispute resolutions.  Therefore, if
one party doesn't agree on going to a DRO -let a lone a particular DRO- then there is no legitimate
way of forcing that particular party to comply.

No, I do not recognize this.  Evidence suggests that agriculture predates the rise of the state.  Therefore, there was a period during which there was a recognized legitimacy to a farmer's exclusive right to the land that he used to grow crops, without a government promoting this legitimacy and defending said land.  

In an anarcho-capitalist society, an individual squatting on land that is universally recogniuzed by the various DROs as belonging to another individual would be removed by that individual's DRO (or by the individual himself).

Quote
I'm sorry but what you and those like you want is a government; for it would be the only way for
universality to exist which would be required for your property laws.

Competing DROs no more constitute a government than Chrysler, Ford, GM, etc. constitute one auto manufacturer.  

Quote
Also, you make it sound like you could never leave ones property or car or anything; you are being
facetious so you can appeal to an emotional trigger of people.  Before modern property laws, people
left their homes and also, they left their horses outside of different stores and such, and the
frequency of theft was almost nothing.

You are now trying to have your cake and eat it.  You have clearly stated, numerous times, that when one leaves one's land, one abandons one's legitimate claim to that land.  Now you're essentially saying that that isn't what you mean.  

Quote
There is a difference between land property and other kinds of property which you are refusing to
accept.  People don't steal unless it is because of one of two reasons: 1)it is easier to steal
then it is to work and purchase, 2)they are desperate.  Both of which are solved with abolishing
government.

However, when one method of land ownership is Homesteading, then any property which is not in use
can be Homesteaded; this is why people of your kind suggest that Homesteading should only be accepted
for the initial ownership of property, to prevent people from Homesteading other people's absentee
ownership property. The problem arises with this when an individual who owns a property dies and has no
family and hasn't willed the property to anybody; thereby reverting the property back to unowned, and
therefore requires Homesteading all-over-again.  This scenario therefore leaves the possibility of Homesteading
an absentee owners unoccupied property, because Homesteading -therefore- must be accepted outside of
just for initial ownership claims.

People "of my kind" have no problem with homesteading truly abandoned property, such as in the case of a documented death with no heirs, or when the property owner has been uncontactable for an agreed-upon amount of time, after which the property becomes unowned.  What we have a problem with are assertions that absentee land ownership is invalid, combined with immature, steadfast refusals to clearly state what length of absence constitutes "absentee ownership".  

Quote
So, if you are adamant about absentee ownership then you need a government to force compliance, less
you want to abandon Homesteading altogether and suffer the cons of absentee ownership claims for
non-homesteaded property, like the Universe, or Mars and such.  However, even if you and your kind
did decide to abandon Homesteading, you would still need the vast amount of the population to accept
it; and you still wouldn't have a universal force -which would be accepted- to use against those who
appose you.


Once again, you are absolutely wrong in your assertion that a government is needed to enforce absentee property ownership rights.  It has been clearly explained to you how such rights could be enforced in a voluntary society, and, as I pointed out earlier in this post, the notion of land property rights predates government, as the farmer's neighbors no doubt voluntarily respected his claim to the land that he used to farm.  

Also, you are an utter retard if you think that some kook claiming spaces that he cannot physically travel to, extract resources from, or interact with any meaningful way (bouncing electromagnetic energy, in the form of radio or a laser, off of a nearby celestial body being the only form of interaction that I can think of that would conceivably be at the disposal of someone with moderate wealth) bothers me or any other reasonable person.  Why should vacuous property claims like this bother us?  Do you realize that most people could care less about the nonsense claims made by people in insane asylums?  Therefore, I am utterly baffled why you think that any of us cares about your claim to the entire universe sans the earth and its artificial satellites.  

Quote
You do realize that people by [sic] iPads of their own free-will, don't you?  Microsoft being able to install
its OS in the major brands of computer manufacturers computers(the right of businesses to cooperate) is not
illegal under AnCap, so it would still happen.  Even if the companies changed, the value in the argument isn't
in the companies, but in the fact that groups of people make bad choices which is why democracy is a bad idea. Under democracy -of any-kind- the least common denominator is the most popular with the masses.  This is why the worst of all possible choices is always on top in a democracy, or viewer choice or whatever type of
mass determination one wants to identify. This is why when needing the acceptance of the people, one is better-off keeping the number of items few, simple and intuitive; otherwise you end-up with Communism.

People buy things of their own free will in the context of the limited selection brought forth by crony capitalism.  Both Apple and Microsoft have received enormous favors from the government.  While the free market has a distant similarity to democracy, the free market is not based on "one adult, one vote" but rather "one unit of currency, one vote".  The less enlightened, less intelligent, less wealthy cookie cutter herd-like members of the population will have less ability to sway things than the more enlightened, more intelligent, more wealthy, independent members of the population.  

Quote
[Agrarian_Agorist]You do realize that the only reason we have the laws of property ownership which we have today is due to the fact that there is a non-voluntary universal force called government which threatens to fine, cage, or kill anybody who doesn't accept it; right?
Quote
[state hater]No, I do not recognize this.  Evidence suggests that agriculture predates the rise of the state.  Therefore, there was a period during which there was a recognized legitimacy to a farmer's exclusive right to the land that he used to grow crops

You are using an example of the Homesteading Principle to somehow justify absentee land ownership.  I think you should hold-off on calling people retards.

Quote
All property ownership has a degree of absenteeism to it, which is why your assertion about piecewise property rights is nonsense.
Quote
When you're tending to your crops on your necessarily-large estate, the clothes in your bedroom closet become absentee property.

I don't think you know what absentee ownership is.  If I left my clothes on the side of the road somewhere and I still claimed ownership, this would be absentee ownership.

I never said that I don't believe in private property.  I can believe in private property without believing in
absentee ownership; but you cannot believe in absentee ownership without believing in private property.  Maybe you think that to believe in private property one needs to believe in absentee ownership, which is false.

Quote
Competing DROs no more constitute a government than Chrysler, Ford, GM, etc. constitute one auto manufacturer.

Does Ford, GM, and Chrysler have an agreement between them?  You stated that all or a majority of DRO's needed an agreement between them for identifying legitimate claims; this is the difference between what I said and what you then implied with the auto companies. They are two different things; so, yes if the DRO's are in agreement between each other, then they do make a de facto government.  Who would a DRO side with; the individual which pays a DRO service or the individual who doesn't utilize such things?  You are advocating for an inherent conflict of interest in Dispute Resolution services.  This is why to dispute something both parties need to agree on an impartial independent third party; however, one could still claim a conflict of interest if one of the individuals happens to utilize DRO services frequently then it would be more likely that any DRO will side with that individual.

Quote
People "of my kind" have no problem with homesteading truly abandoned property
Do you realize that Homesteading deals with property which wasn't being used, and the Homesteader utilizes
the unused property for a purpose.  Also, if property can only have a title of ownership after it has been
homesteaded, then there can not be situations where a property could be confused for unoccupied; can it?

Quote
Once again, you are absolutely wrong in your assertion that a government is needed to enforce absentee property ownership rights.  It has been clearly explained to you how such rights could be enforced in a voluntary society, and, as I pointed out earlier in this post, the notion of land property rights predates government, as the farmer's neighbors no doubt voluntarily respected his claim to the land that he used to farm.

Again you are using an example of Homesteading to try and illustrate absentee land ownership.  

Quote
as the farmer's neighbors no doubt voluntarily respected his claim to the land that he used to farm.
Again, I have said before that one needs to rely on their neighbors for claims of ownership and legitimacy for using force against people trying to take your property.  This is the part that SimonJester railed against because of the possibility that his neighbors hate him.

Quote
People buy things of their own free will in the context of the limited selection brought forth by crony capitalism.  Both Apple and Microsoft have received enormous favors from the government.  While the free market has a distant similarity to democracy, the free market is not based on "one adult, one vote" but rather "one unit of currency, one vote".  The less enlightened, less intelligent, less wealthy cookie cutter herd-like members of the population will have less ability to sway things than the more enlightened, more intelligent, more wealthy, independent members of the population.

You are focusing on the two companies I happen to pick to illustrate the fact that when given a choice -and to win the choice needs the most selections- then the lowest common denominator will always win, because it is the choice which resonates with the most amount of people.  This is true whether there is two selections or an infinite amount of selections or any number of selection in-between.  It is a mathematical certainty.

Quote
The less enlightened, less intelligent, less wealthy cookie cutter herd-like members of the population will have less ability to sway things than the more enlightened, more intelligent, more wealthy, independent members of the population.
You seem to be suggesting that the wealthy are enlightened and therefore deserve to have greater sway in the way things work.  Isn't this what we have now?  I don't think that the wealthiest are that enlightened; do you?

You definitely need to address your elitist mindset which seems to be on display with your last couple of sentences.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 17, 2013, 05:27:09 PM
as the farmer's neighbors no doubt voluntarily respected his claim to the land that he used to farm. Again, I have said before that one needs to rely on their neighbors for claims of ownership and legitimacy for using force against people trying to take your property.  This is the part that SimonJester railed against because of the possibility that his neighbors hate him.

I didn't "rail against" anything.  I thought your argument was absurd, and said so.  Not because my neighbors might hate me, but because I couldn't give less of a shit how my neighbors feel about me, in this context.  What's mine is mine.  My central objection to your argument against absentee ownership is that you cannot or will not define it, and when I ask you to, you spout some crap about my neighbors deciding, based on my popularity.  That's asinine.  I will ask again.  What constitutes absentee ownership?  If I go to work for the day?  Vacation for two weeks? Only use my cabin during the summer?  Rent it out to a friend for his vacation?  You keep shouting about the evils of something you have yet to give a cogent definition of. Forget my neighbors' opinions for a moment and give me yours.  When do you feel entitled to move into my house?


Quote
You seem to be suggesting that the wealthy are enlightened and therefore deserve to have greater sway in the way things work.  Isn't this what we have now? I don't think that the wealthiest are that enlightened; do you?

You definitely need to address your elitist mindset which seems to be on display with your last couple of sentences.

Umm... Sorry, no.  I am an elitist, and unashamed.  Being wealthy, in our current system, may or may not be something to be proud of, depending on how it was accomplished.  But one thing I'm certain of about an-cap is that it will benefit the able, the motivated, and the productive.  I actually think the guy who founds a company, takes the risks, provides the jobs, etc. deserves to make vastly more money than a guy on the assembly line.  Likewise someone who is productive, prudent, and foresighted enough to have grown some wealth, has every right to invest that wealth in an apartment complex, rent that space out to others, and profit from it.  He doesn't have to live there for it to be his.  He bought or built it, he maintains it, it's his. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 17, 2013, 09:53:48 PM
Quote
You are using an example of the Homesteading Principle to somehow justify absentee land ownership.  I think you should hold-off on calling people retards.

There is absolutely no contradiction between believing in the validity of homesteading and also believing that one may leave one's property for a few hours to go shopping, or for a few days to go on a vacation. 

Quote
I don't think you know what absentee ownership is.  If I left my clothes on the side of the road somewhere and I still claimed ownership, this would be absentee ownership.

I never said that I don't believe in private property.  I can believe in private property without believing in
absentee ownership; but you cannot believe in absentee ownership without believing in private property.  Maybe you think that to believe in private property one needs to believe in absentee ownership, which is false.

I think that you don't understand that leaving personal possessions out of reach and out of sight on your land could be considered absentee ownership.  Even though you have declared that the land that those possessions are on to be yours, if your land property is large you cannot monitor and defend all of it all of the time. 

Why do you steadfastly refuse to state what length of absence qualifies as "absentee" after being asked numerous times by multiple posters?

Quote
Does Ford, GM, and Chrysler have an agreement between them?  You stated that all or a majority of DRO's needed an agreement between them for identifying legitimate claims; this is the difference between what I said and what you then implied with the auto companies. They are two different things; so, yes if the DRO's are in agreement between each other, then they do make a de facto government.  Who would a DRO side with; the individual which pays a DRO service or the individual who doesn't utilize such things?  You are advocating for an inherent conflict of interest in Dispute Resolution services.  This is why to dispute something both parties need to agree on an impartial independent third party; however, one could still claim a conflict of interest if one of the individuals happens to utilize DRO services frequently then it would be more likely that any DRO will side with that individual.

Have you heard of coopetition?  Competing businesses cooperate in various ways all of the time, and auto manufacturers are no exceptions.  Likewise, DROs would engage in coopetition:  they would be distinct entitites that compete in some ways, and cooperate in other ways.  Since they would be distinct, competing entities, only a moron could conclude that they constitute a unified, coercive monopolistic entity known as government.  Furthermore, your assertion of bias on the part of DROs is moot, since DROs do not decide the outcome of arbitration.  Rather, arbiters decide that.  The DROs merely provide security, draft agreements with each other, and represent their respective customers.  A person who does not subscribe to a DRO could appear before the arbiter(s) without a DRO representing him.

Quote
Do you realize that Homesteading deals with property which wasn't being used, and the Homesteader utilizes the unused property for a purpose.

You have categorically condemned all "absentee" land ownership, and refused to state that merely going shopping for a few hours or on a vacation for a few days would not lead to the forfeiture of one's right to own a piece of land, and instead resorted to vague, snide remarks about how we all should be self-sufficient.  You have certainly given the impression that your position is that one may never leave one's land at all (only to engage in some backtracking in the post prior to the one that I'm responding to now, but nonetheless, the vast majority of your posts on this matter definitely convey the idea that you're some kind of hard core whack job who thinks that one forfeits one's right to one's land the moment that one steps off of it). I challenge your contention that land that is vacated for a few hours, days, weeks, or even months is "unused" and suitable for homesteading. 

Quote
Also, if property can only have a title of ownership after it has been
homesteaded, then there can not be situations where a property could be confused for unoccupied; can it?

Of course property that has a title of ownership could be confused for unoccupied based on a casual glance from the nearest road or the air (this obviously depends quite heavily on the nature of the property).  A private park or wilderness preserve may merely have a few nature trails and signs on it, with none of that being visible from the air or nearest road.  One may falsely conclude that this is wilderness that is suitable for homesteading, but after checking the property database(s) maintained by the DROs, one would see that said land was already universally recognized as being owned.

Quote
Again you are using an example of Homesteading to try and illustrate absentee land ownership.

Again, there is absolutely no conflict between the right to homestead unused land and the right for one to leave one's land property and maintain ownership of said property.

Quote
Again, I have said before that one needs to rely on their neighbors for claims of ownership and legitimacy for using force against people trying to take your property.  This is the part that SimonJester railed against because of the possibility that his neighbors hate him.

The point that you're responding to here was my mention that soon after invention of agriculture, but prior to the rise of the state, people (e.g., neighbors) apparently recognized the legitimacy of the farmer's exclusive right to a piece of land.  My point wasn't that immediate neighbors are the sole arbiter of land property legitimacy today, but rather that immediate neighbors of farmers circa ten thousand years (who would be pretty much the only people who would even know of the existence of the farmed land) apparently recognized the legitimacy of the farmer's exclusive use of the farmed land. 

Quote
You are focusing on the two companies I happen to pick to illustrate the fact that when given a choice -and to win the choice needs the most selections- then the lowest common denominator will always win, because it is the choice which resonates with the most amount of people.  This is true whether there is two selections or an infinite amount of selections or any number of selection in-between.  It is a mathematical certainty.

Why does this matter if the people who want something other than the lowest common denominator can find a business that is willing to cater to their desires (which is the case in a pure free market, but not necessarily in crony capitalism, where quite frequently all the product choices in a given area are shit)? 

Quote
You seem to be suggesting that the wealthy are enlightened and therefore deserve to have greater sway in the way things work.  Isn't this what we have now?  I don't think that the wealthiest are that enlightened; do you?

You definitely need to address your elitist mindset which seems to be on display with your last couple of sentences.

In the current system of crony capitalism the wealthy are often unenlightened dumbfucks (George W. Bush is an excellent example).  In the system that most people on this board presumably desire, pure laizzez faire capitalism, there will be a very strong correlation between success on the one hand and intelligence and motivation on the other hand (e.g., a highly intelligent person with little motivation may indeed be only moderately well off to not so well off).


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 17, 2013, 10:20:57 PM
I think that it is likely that governments will sell "public" lands (including roads :) ) as their debts spiral out of control.  This can be be part of the basis for a smooth transition to a voluntary society.  
That actually sounds terrible. Who is going to get the best deal for this government property? Wal Mart, Goldman, Monsanto, Exxon, ect. We will have to move in to those lands immediately to prevent post government ripples in the market

Why?  The companies you listed are all publicly traded.  If they acquire the lion's share of "government" land, absolutely nothing prohibits citizens from buying up their stock and seizing control of the companies. Personally, I would be willing (if the Gov was selling off its holdings) to donate quite a bit (for me) to a non-profit devoted to buying and preserving the National Parks, because I happen to like them and don't want them strip mined. Its a "money where our mouth is" situation.

EDIT:  I don't think the USGov would actually be that reasonable and responsible, though.  They'll never admit they're bankrupt.  They'll just ride it 'till it implodes and then skip town, like a bunch of Enron assholes.  We'll have to sort out the mess afterward.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 18, 2013, 01:25:38 PM
I don't think you know exactly what homesteading or absentee ownership are.  Homesteading is concerning active work or residence on the property; Absentee ownership doesn't require activity of any kind.  Therefore, if a property was Homesteaded there would be signs of recent activity whereas absentee land ownership wouldn't necessarily have any signs of activity.  An 'absentee land ownership' land parcel with signs of activity could be considered Homesteaded, however an inactive land parcel cannot be considered Homesteaded, and therefore requires government to force recognition by the people.

Absentee land ownership tethers a physical immovable land parcel to a small physical movable piece of paper, which people could carry with them wherever they went.  The problem for the 'absentee land ownership' crowd is that without a universal omnipresent non-voluntary force which threatens to fine, cage, or kill all those who disregard the claim, then the claim is meaningless.


Quote
Why do you steadfastly refuse to state what length of absence qualifies as "absentee" after being asked numerous times by multiple posters?

You don't know much about 'Common Law' do you?  If you did then you would know that, while different locations accepted generally certain laws, they all had their own specifics for the laws.  As an example, common law marriage.  All places recognized that there was such a thing, but not all locations accepted it as legal.  Each location which did recognize common law marriage as legal, differed on the specifics required to declare a couple married.  One area required that the couple live together for 7 years and make a document declaring their marriage and having witnesses affirm the marriage.  Some areas only made the requirement of 5 years and the paper, and other areas yet only required the paper.  There is no specific time which would be universal to all areas whereby ones land then could be Homestead/re-Homesteaded.  You would need an omnipresent force to force the masses to recognize the title as legal.

Twenty-three years ago people took-over a piece of property and held it for 1 1/2 to 2 years before the title holder found out about it and took the people to court.  If the public would have decided the verdict then the 'squatters' would have been given the property instantly; however, since it was the government it took a while, but they eventually also ruled in favor of the 'squatters,' because the title holder(s) left the property and moved to a different state and never came back.  I'm not definitively sure how many years the property was abandoned, I think it was between 3 and 5 years.  If cars are left on the side of the road, the owner has three days before the police put an 'Abandoned' sticker on it and it can be taken by anybody; however, unofficially, any individual can take the vehicle on the third day, but it is not widely known to give the owner a little more time to haul the car away.  If somebody leaves anything near the road it is considered abandoned within one day. If the item is left near a garbage can at the side of the road it is considered abandoned instantly.

If you abandon something, then you shouldn't complain if somebody else decides to use it and claim it as their own.

Also, absent an omnipresent universal force that threatens everybody with fines, cages, and death, there really is no way to force people to adhere to your wishes.  There is no way to make people in a voluntary 'society' go to an arbiter; with or without a signed contract.

I think some of you are scared of living in a free society and are trying to impose constraints which never would have emerged in the society organically.  Most of the people who are propagating those ideas are lawyers; they are just looking to be able to continue their law practice in the absence of a government; this has never been shown to be a natural way for people to settle disputes in situations with little to no government.

Also, if you want a large business, then you might want to consider moving to India or China.  In the US as is in Europe massive manufacturing and such are all moving away and micro-businesses are tacking root.  With the lower price of machines and with the implementation of 3D printers and other modern technologies, DIY home-brew will be the future in the US especially in an anarchist society.  There are environments where people are working on all kinds of home-brew technologies, including IC fabrication, space and rocketry.

Seriously, when people could just print or manufacture their own items, do you really think that there will be much business going on?  What business would be going on, would have plenty of competition thereby keeping the prices at a bare minimum; how much money do you think you will make in a society like that?  The only major businesses which might be left in the future would be Space exploration, Sea Steading, and R&D.  However, NASA is testing their own 3D printed metal parts, and if that works out then they will be making their own parts, thereby reducing businesses required.  If 3D printing of metal works out, then in no time, the tech will be made smaller and cheaper and sooner or later it will fit in a person's garage.  There may even be instructions on the Net to build ones own 3D metal printer; there are for many other machines.

If I may ask you a question; who was the most important:   Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Mike Markkula?


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 18, 2013, 02:03:21 PM
Oops, forgot to use.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 19, 2013, 01:51:23 AM
Quote
I don't think you know exactly what homesteading or absentee ownership are.  Homesteading is concerning active work or residence on the property; Absentee ownership doesn't require activity of any kind.  Therefore, if a property was Homesteaded there would be signs of recent activity whereas absentee land ownership wouldn't necessarily have any signs of activity.

I have been using your clearly implied definition of "absentee ownership":  leaving your land for any length of time while maintaining a claim of ownership to said land. 

Quote
An 'absentee land ownership' land parcel with signs of activity could be considered Homesteaded, however an inactive land parcel cannot be considered Homesteaded, and therefore requires government to force recognition by the people.

Why should someone not be able to own a wilderness preserve comprising little more in the way of the "hand of man" than a sign and perhaps a fence?  A DRO could protect one's right to such a property.

Quote
Absentee land ownership tethers a physical immovable land parcel to a small physical movable piece of paper, which people could carry with them wherever they went.  The problem for the 'absentee land ownership' crowd is that without a universal omnipresent non-voluntary force which threatens to fine, cage, or kill all those who disregard the claim, then the claim is meaningless.

You write as if the use of force to defend certain things is bad.  I maintain that there is nothing wrong with using force to defend life and property, and that this force need not be universal nor omnipresent. 

Quote
You don't know much about 'Common Law' do you?  If you did then you would know that, while different locations accepted generally certain laws, they all had their own specifics for the laws.  As an example, common law marriage.  All places recognized that there was such a thing, but not all locations accepted it as legal.  Each location which did recognize common law marriage as legal, differed on the specifics required to declare a couple married.  One area required that the couple live together for 7 years and make a document declaring their marriage and having witnesses affirm the marriage.  Some areas only made the requirement of 5 years and the paper, and other areas yet only required the paper.  There is no specific time which would be universal to all areas whereby ones land then could be Homestead/re-Homesteaded.

I know a lot about common law.  Explain how someone is supposed to know whether his neighbors will steal his property if he leaves for a few hours. 

Quote
You would need an omnipresent force to force the masses to recognize the title as legal.

Once again, there need not be an omnipresent force in order for property rights to be protected. 

Quote
Twenty-three years ago people took-over a piece of property and held it for 1 1/2 to 2 years before the title holder found out about it and took the people to court.  If the public would have decided the verdict then the 'squatters' would have been given the property instantly; however, since it was the government it took a while, but they eventually also ruled in favor of the 'squatters,' because the title holder(s) left the property and moved to a different state and never came back.  I'm not definitively sure how many years the property was abandoned, I think it was between 3 and 5 years.  If cars are left on the side of the road, the owner has three days before the police put an 'Abandoned' sticker on it and it can be taken by anybody; however, unofficially, any individual can take the vehicle on the third day, but it is not widely known to give the owner a little more time to haul the car away.  If somebody leaves anything near the road it is considered abandoned within one day. If the item is left near a garbage can at the side of the road it is considered abandoned instantly.

If you abandon something, then you shouldn't complain if somebody else decides to use it and claim it as their own.

Leaving one's property for a few hours, days, or weeks does not constitute abandonment.

Quote
Also, absent an omnipresent universal force that threatens everybody with fines, cages, and death, there really is no way to force people to adhere to your wishes.

You seem to think that the repeated use of the word "omnipresent" will force us to think that we're actually not anarchists.  If you think this, then you're wrong. 

Quote
There is no way to make people in a voluntary 'society' go to an arbiter; with or without a signed contract.

They are free to opt out of arbitration, but they will face force when they violate someone's property. 

Quote
I think some of you are scared of living in a free society and are trying to impose constraints which never would have emerged in the society organically.  Most of the people who are propagating those ideas are lawyers; they are just looking to be able to continue their law practice in the absence of a government; this has never been shown to be a natural way for people to settle disputes in situations with little to no government.

You're the one who wants to strip people of the right to have property that they can leave for any length of time. 

Quote
Also, if you want a large business, then you might want to consider moving to India or China.  In the US as is in Europe massive manufacturing and such are all moving away and micro-businesses are tacking root.  With the lower price of machines and with the implementation of 3D printers and other modern technologies, DIY home-brew will be the future in the US especially in an anarchist society.  There are environments where people are working on all kinds of home-brew technologies, including IC fabrication, space and rocketry.

Seriously, when people could just print or manufacture their own items, do you really think that there will be much business going on?  What business would be going on, would have plenty of competition thereby keeping the prices at a bare minimum; how much money do you think you will make in a society like that?  The only major businesses which might be left in the future would be Space exploration, Sea Steading, and R&D.  However, NASA is testing their own 3D printed metal parts, and if that works out then they will be making their own parts, thereby reducing businesses required.  If 3D printing of metal works out, then in no time, the tech will be made smaller and cheaper and sooner or later it will fit in a person's garage.  There may even be instructions on the Net to build ones own 3D metal printer; there are for many other machines.

Virtual reality will not replace the desire to see certain places in the flesh.  There will still be demand for seeing places like the Grand Canyon, and so tourism will always be a viable industry.  No matter how good virtual reality and 3D printing become, most people would not be satisfied with being cooped up indefinitely on their respective properties.

Quote
If I may ask you a question; who was the most important:   Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Mike Markkula?

I am not qualified to determine this. 


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: SimonJester on September 19, 2013, 02:09:08 AM
Also, if you want a large business, then you might want to consider moving to India or China.  In the US as is in Europe massive manufacturing and such are all moving away and micro-businesses are tacking root.  With the lower price of machines and with the implementation of 3D printers and other modern technologies, DIY home-brew will be the future in the US especially in an anarchist society.  There are environments where people are working on all kinds of home-brew technologies, including IC fabrication, space and rocketry.

Seriously, when people could just print or manufacture their own items, do you really think that there will be much business going on?  What business would be going on, would have plenty of competition thereby keeping the prices at a bare minimum; how much money do you think you will make in a society like that?  The only major businesses which might be left in the future would be Space exploration, Sea Steading, and R&D.  However, NASA is testing their own 3D printed metal parts, and if that works out then they will be making their own parts, thereby reducing businesses required.  If 3D printing of metal works out, then in no time, the tech will be made smaller and cheaper and sooner or later it will fit in a person's garage.  There may even be instructions on the Net to build ones own 3D metal printer; there are for many other machines.

Ok, we're entering an area I'm actually qualified in.  I know there's a popular belief that everyone's opinion is equally valid and should get equal respect, but that's horseshit, and the fact that the egalitarian view of it is so popular just shows how ignorant and stupid the average person is.  When I have a medical question, I ask an MD, not a plumber.  I am a machinist and a programmer for CNC machine tools, and with regard to everything I've quoted above, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  Owning a lathe, a mill, or a 3D printer doesn't make you a competent machinist any more than owning a formula one car makes you a race car driver, and new manufacturing technology leads to more opportunities, not less.  Throughout history, every expansion of technology has brought about more specialization and interdependence, from the first time we started producing enough surplus food to support a guy who just made shoes and a chick who just made pottery, all the way up to now.  The result has always been more trade, not less.  True self sufficiency, without the resources of a technological civilization to draw on, will inevitably break down to near-Neolithic squalor.  JMNSHO, based on the fact that this is what I do, and in a few months, what I'll have a degree in.  Somehow, I doubt this or anything else I say will sway you, though.

Edit:  Why the fuck would I move to India or China?  If I need super cheap labor with no real skill involved, perhaps I'll open a plant there, but there's no reason I have to live there.  If I want guys who can think and adapt mid-stream, see the whole picture, fix a bug in a program from the controller on the floor, run off multiple design prototypes in a single shift, recognize and point out to the programmers where the operation could run faster... In short, if I want to produce the best of anything, rather than the cheapest, I'll locate my plant here and pay my guys a little more, and charge more for a superior product.  People who know the difference will pay it.  Even if I'm making the cheapest sneakers on the planet, the eight-year-olds can hand-stitch them for twelve hours and collect their bowl of rice without me standing there watching them, so I'll pass on moving to Malaysia and catching malaria, thank you very much.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 19, 2013, 09:58:08 AM
Also, if you want a large business, then you might want to consider moving to India or China.  In the US as is in Europe massive manufacturing and such are all moving away and micro-businesses are tacking root.  With the lower price of machines and with the implementation of 3D printers and other modern technologies, DIY home-brew will be the future in the US especially in an anarchist society.  There are environments where people are working on all kinds of home-brew technologies, including IC fabrication, space and rocketry.

Seriously, when people could just print or manufacture their own items, do you really think that there will be much business going on?  What business would be going on, would have plenty of competition thereby keeping the prices at a bare minimum; how much money do you think you will make in a society like that?  The only major businesses which might be left in the future would be Space exploration, Sea Steading, and R&D.  However, NASA is testing their own 3D printed metal parts, and if that works out then they will be making their own parts, thereby reducing businesses required.  If 3D printing of metal works out, then in no time, the tech will be made smaller and cheaper and sooner or later it will fit in a person's garage.  There may even be instructions on the Net to build ones own 3D metal printer; there are for many other machines.

Ok, we're entering an area I'm actually qualified in.  I know there's a popular belief that everyone's opinion is equally valid and should get equal respect, but that's horseshit, and the fact that the egalitarian view of it is so popular just shows how ignorant and stupid the average person is.  When I have a medical question, I ask an MD, not a plumber.  I am a machinist and a programmer for CNC machine tools, and with regard to everything I've quoted above, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  Owning a lathe, a mill, or a 3D printer doesn't make you a competent machinist any more than owning a formula one car makes you a race car driver, and new manufacturing technology leads to more opportunities, not less.  Throughout history, every expansion of technology has brought about more specialization and interdependence, from the first time we started producing enough surplus food to support a guy who just made shoes and a chick who just made pottery, all the way up to now.  The result has always been more trade, not less.  True self sufficiency, without the resources of a technological civilization to draw on, will inevitably break down to near-Neolithic squalor.  JMNSHO, based on the fact that this is what I do, and in a few months, what I'll have a degree in.  Somehow, I doubt this or anything else I say will sway you, though.

Edit:  Why the fuck would I move to India or China?  If I need super cheap labor with no real skill involved, perhaps I'll open a plant there, but there's no reason I have to live there.  If I want guys who can think and adapt mid-stream, see the whole picture, fix a bug in a program from the controller on the floor, run off multiple design prototypes in a single shift, recognize and point out to the programmers where the operation could run faster... In short, if I want to produce the best of anything, rather than the cheapest, I'll locate my plant here and pay my guys a little more, and charge more for a superior product.  People who know the difference will pay it.  Even if I'm making the cheapest sneakers on the planet, the eight-year-olds can hand-stitch them for twelve hours and collect their bowl of rice without me standing there watching them, so I'll pass on moving to Malaysia and catching malaria, thank you very much.

The fact that you have stoop to apealing to experts indicate that you have no idea what you are talking bout.  What happens when there are two differnt opinions by experts; who should you listen to then?  Most likely you will say that the opinion with the most support should then be accepted as the correct opinion, since you need to be advised by an expert, otherwise one would have to make an important decision on ones own, which could then lead to people not listening to eperts at all, when they realize that they can make decisions for
themselves.

If we are to accept your claim of appealing to experts, then we would all be in agreement that Keynesian economics is the correct form of economics, because it is the type of economics which has
the greater number of expert proponents.

Should we listen to the Middle East experts who say that most Muslims want to kill Americans?  Should we listen to the War experts who claim we must go to war with Syria and then Iran or the US will be destroyed?

Appealing to experts is even worse than appealing to authority, because experts require an education in that particular field of study, where an authority could be just an indivual who is widely respected in the field.

Under your appealing to experts nobody should listen to Ron Paul on anything other than OB/GYN, since that is all that he studied and practiced.  Lew Rockwell is not a trained philospher, economist, journalist so we shouldn't listen to him either, and the same goes for Adam Kokesh, and Stefan Molyneux and all the others with a few expptions -but they would be in the minority of field of expertise and therefore should be ignored anyway.

If you like appealing to experts, then what about Climate Change?

While you talk about machinists being experts and that others can't do it; what you are actually refering to is efficiency.  To say that anybody interested in doing machining can't because they aren't trained is just ridiculous.

Also, your argument leads to an unescapable paradox loop.  You say appeal to experts, but your aren't an actual expert, so then I shouldn't listen to you, which then would lead me to the conclusion that I shouldn't listen to experts and since you're not an expert then I should listen to you, but if I listen to you, then I shouldn't listen to you because you're not an expert and the loop would continue on ad infinitum.

The understanding and propagating of the concept of appealing to experts and authority was heavily used by the socialists in the 20th century, to control the masses.  You are just propagating the same nonsense.  Before the 20th century people didn't depend on one activity to maintain their lives and the lives of their family.

The massive amounts of experts said that human flight was impossible, then they said that a helicopter was impossible, then they said leaving the Earth was impossible.  The coumputer experts said that building personal computer was a waist of time and money because nobody would buy them.  The exoperts said that the internet was a kids toy and it wouldn't ammount to much of anything else, the experts also said that it was impossible to make money from the internet. 

Do I really need to continue?

Appealing to experts isn't just reserved for individuals; organizations do it to.  When the majority of fortune 500 companies incorpoate and ne action -like say requiring that all of their employees have a Bachlores degree- then that kind of nonsence permiates all other businesses, which drives smaller companies out of business due to the cost.  Colleges follow the lead of the Ivy League schools.  So, your philosophy would create a leader or many leaders which would then in time create government due to looking to experts for guidance.

Experts are experts of things which have already be created, therfore they are -almost incapable of- creating anything new, and therefore should not be looked to for advice on new ideas.  One could also suggest that being active mentally in several different tasks improves ones brain, and learning new things continuously not only improves ones brain but keeps it highly active which should stave off alzheimers.

You want people to be dependend, but most importantly, you want people to be dependent on you; which
is why I suggested that you and state hater might want to move to China or India.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 19, 2013, 10:20:19 AM
Quote
I don't think you know exactly what homesteading or absentee ownership are.  Homesteading is concerning active work or residence on the property; Absentee ownership doesn't require activity of any kind.  Therefore, if a property was Homesteaded there would be signs of recent activity whereas absentee land ownership wouldn't necessarily have any signs of activity.

I have been using your clearly implied definition of "absentee ownership":  leaving your land for any length of time while maintaining a claim of ownership to said land. 

Quote
An 'absentee land ownership' land parcel with signs of activity could be considered Homesteaded, however an inactive land parcel cannot be considered Homesteaded, and therefore requires government to force recognition by the people.

Why should someone not be able to own a wilderness preserve comprising little more in the way of the "hand of man" than a sign and perhaps a fence?  A DRO could protect one's right to such a property.

Quote
Absentee land ownership tethers a physical immovable land parcel to a small physical movable piece of paper, which people could carry with them wherever they went.  The problem for the 'absentee land ownership' crowd is that without a universal omnipresent non-voluntary force which threatens to fine, cage, or kill all those who disregard the claim, then the claim is meaningless.

You write as if the use of force to defend certain things is bad.  I maintain that there is nothing wrong with using force to defend life and property, and that this force need not be universal nor omnipresent. 

Quote
You don't know much about 'Common Law' do you?  If you did then you would know that, while different locations accepted generally certain laws, they all had their own specifics for the laws.  As an example, common law marriage.  All places recognized that there was such a thing, but not all locations accepted it as legal.  Each location which did recognize common law marriage as legal, differed on the specifics required to declare a couple married.  One area required that the couple live together for 7 years and make a document declaring their marriage and having witnesses affirm the marriage.  Some areas only made the requirement of 5 years and the paper, and other areas yet only required the paper.  There is no specific time which would be universal to all areas whereby ones land then could be Homestead/re-Homesteaded.

I know a lot about common law.  Explain how someone is supposed to know whether his neighbors will steal his property if he leaves for a few hours. 

Quote
You would need an omnipresent force to force the masses to recognize the title as legal.

Once again, there need not be an omnipresent force in order for property rights to be protected. 

Quote
Twenty-three years ago people took-over a piece of property and held it for 1 1/2 to 2 years before the title holder found out about it and took the people to court.  If the public would have decided the verdict then the 'squatters' would have been given the property instantly; however, since it was the government it took a while, but they eventually also ruled in favor of the 'squatters,' because the title holder(s) left the property and moved to a different state and never came back.  I'm not definitively sure how many years the property was abandoned, I think it was between 3 and 5 years.  If cars are left on the side of the road, the owner has three days before the police put an 'Abandoned' sticker on it and it can be taken by anybody; however, unofficially, any individual can take the vehicle on the third day, but it is not widely known to give the owner a little more time to haul the car away.  If somebody leaves anything near the road it is considered abandoned within one day. If the item is left near a garbage can at the side of the road it is considered abandoned instantly.

If you abandon something, then you shouldn't complain if somebody else decides to use it and claim it as their own.

Leaving one's property for a few hours, days, or weeks does not constitute abandonment.

Quote
Also, absent an omnipresent universal force that threatens everybody with fines, cages, and death, there really is no way to force people to adhere to your wishes.

You seem to think that the repeated use of the word "omnipresent" will force us to think that we're actually not anarchists.  If you think this, then you're wrong. 

Quote
There is no way to make people in a voluntary 'society' go to an arbiter; with or without a signed contract.

They are free to opt out of arbitration, but they will face force when they violate someone's property. 

Quote
I think some of you are scared of living in a free society and are trying to impose constraints which never would have emerged in the society organically.  Most of the people who are propagating those ideas are lawyers; they are just looking to be able to continue their law practice in the absence of a government; this has never been shown to be a natural way for people to settle disputes in situations with little to no government.

You're the one who wants to strip people of the right to have property that they can leave for any length of time. 

Quote
Also, if you want a large business, then you might want to consider moving to India or China.  In the US as is in Europe massive manufacturing and such are all moving away and micro-businesses are tacking root.  With the lower price of machines and with the implementation of 3D printers and other modern technologies, DIY home-brew will be the future in the US especially in an anarchist society.  There are environments where people are working on all kinds of home-brew technologies, including IC fabrication, space and rocketry.

Seriously, when people could just print or manufacture their own items, do you really think that there will be much business going on?  What business would be going on, would have plenty of competition thereby keeping the prices at a bare minimum; how much money do you think you will make in a society like that?  The only major businesses which might be left in the future would be Space exploration, Sea Steading, and R&D.  However, NASA is testing their own 3D printed metal parts, and if that works out then they will be making their own parts, thereby reducing businesses required.  If 3D printing of metal works out, then in no time, the tech will be made smaller and cheaper and sooner or later it will fit in a person's garage.  There may even be instructions on the Net to build ones own 3D metal printer; there are for many other machines.

Virtual reality will not replace the desire to see certain places in the flesh.  There will still be demand for seeing places like the Grand Canyon, and so tourism will always be a viable industry.  No matter how good virtual reality and 3D printing become, most people would not be satisfied with being cooped up indefinitely on their respective properties.

Quote
If I may ask you a question; who was the most important:   Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac, Mike Markkula?

I am not qualified to determine this. 

Actually, it was you who has inferred that I said that one could not leave their property for any amount of time; I actually never said that.  I did say that before modern property laws, people did leave their properties and they even left their horses tied-up outside different establishments and that theft very rarely occurred.  I have suggested being part of your community, and that will aid in the protection of your property; but I suppose that is difficult for you. 

Any DRO service -like police- are reactionary; meaning that if your property gets violated, they are not going to be there when it happens.  The DRO would be notified after the fact.  If you believe you have proof who did it, but they refuse to go to an arbiter, what will you and your DRO do; probably attack the suspected individual(s).  If you do not put your case before the people of the area beforehand, then it will just look like you and your DRO attacked somebody for no apparent reason; and I hate to tell you but you would probably be better served by leaving the area.

Quote
I know a lot about common law.  Explain how someone is supposed to know whether his neighbors will steal his property if he leaves for a few hours.

How-about you get to know your neighbors; your life may depend on their assistance one day.

Quote
Once again, there need not be an omnipresent force in order for property rights to be protected. 
Of course at the time of assault one wouldn't need an omnipresent force which threatens to fine, cage, or kill everybody who doesn't agree with it, for one to defend oneself; but to distribute 'justice' after the fact you will.


Title: Re: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?
Post by: state hater on September 20, 2013, 02:40:42 AM
Quote
Actually, it was you who has inferred that I said that one could not leave their property for any amount of time; I actually never said that.  I did say that before modern property laws, people did leave their properties and they even left their horses tied-up outside different establishments and that theft very rarely occurred.

Initially, you were evasive, and left the impression that you are an absolutist.  Only recently did you start to imply that you're okay with leaving one's property.

Quote
I have suggested being part of your community, and that will aid in the protection of your property; but I suppose that is difficult for you.

Why? 

Quote
Any DRO service -like police- are reactionary; meaning that if your property gets violated, they are not going to be there when it happens.  The DRO would be notified after the fact.

The same goes for your neighbors.

Quote
If you believe you have proof who did it, but they refuse to go to an arbiter, what will you and your DRO do; probably attack the suspected individual(s).  If you do not put your case before the people of the area beforehand, then it will just look like you and your DRO attacked somebody for no apparent reason; and I hate to tell you but you would probably be better served by leaving the area.

(1)  Why do you think that neighbors would prevail against the DRO?

(2)  Why do you think that introverted, socially inept people, who have a lesser ability to enlist their neighbors as their land property defense force (whom you have explicitly stated are the only legitimate land property recognition and defense force), should have less of a right to own land property?  Are you bigoted against certain personality types?

Quote
How-about you get to know your neighbors; your life may depend on their assistance one day.

As per (2) above, some people may not be able to do this (or not be very skilled with it).  Some people may be able to do this, but do not want to do this, as part of that whole freedom thing.

Quote
Of course at the time of assault one wouldn't need an omnipresent force which threatens to fine, cage, or kill everybody who doesn't agree with it, for one to defend oneself; but to distribute 'justice' after the fact you will.

The ability to travel to nearly everywhere in the stateless territory does not constitute omnipresence.  Omnipresence is more along the lines of the state depicted in 1984.