Daily Anarchist Forum
September 26, 2022, 01:51:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: November 02, 2010, 05:30:28 PM
Seth - That is exactly why I am defending the state.

I've studied the Constitution, I've studied history, and I've studied liberty. The United States of America has been a safe haven for many folks who escaped annihilation and genocide for opportunity and prosperity. No, it's not perfect, but the Constitution can be amended. No nation prior to the United States endured long enough for common people to achieve greatness.  The United States has been a beacon of liberty for the world.

Voluntaryism is not more liberty but less. I do not intend to give-up my freedoms for an inferior social design. If you wish to give-up your privacy voluntarily, then fine. I do not wish to do that. When the central banking cabal is done raping the world, limited government will prevail and once again be embraced by liberty lovers around the world.
2  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: November 02, 2010, 02:33:22 PM

I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?
First, I would argue that the State does anything but define property boundaries clearly. Look at the hundreds of years of caselaw, statutes, regulations, etc. that all, in some way, determine the boundaries of your property. Even if you hire a state-sponsored lawyer you will be faced with more questions than answers. And I'm speaking as a licensed lawyer. From the outside, looking at it as a layman, I can completely understand the sense that property boundaries are clearly defined and predictable. But, in reality, when you get into any dispute many many issues pop up that are easy to ignore until you're in that dispute.
Either, I did not make myself clear, or you are being disingenuous. The state effectively draws property boundaries using "metes & bounds" and "lot & block" survey methods. Then counties make those property boundaries available as public records in deeds recorded in files at the county seats. As a previous property owner of several properties in more than one state, I know for a fact that finding property boundaries are as simple as locating the property boundary pins, and/or measuring, thus verifying that they correctly represented in the deed. In the event of a dispute, I would never use a lawyer to help me find property boundaries. I use surveyors. If it is not accurate, I don't buy the property.

The state very effectively and efficiently clearly defines property boundaries. While nothing is perfect in this world, to claim that the property boundaries are not drawn clearly in America is disingenuous.

Even in today's statist world, we can see innumerable issues popping up with foreclosuregate that deal with title to real property. The rules may seem clear to outsiders but the state does nothing to enforce said rules against insiders, so is the statist system really and truly functional?
Absolutely functional. County courts are in the process of invalidating fraudulent "mortgages" and "deeds of trust" because lenders failed to follow the law. A great many people may end up owning their properties without paying the lender because some courts rule by law.

I don't have a simple answer for how to solve every dispute over property rights just like no anarchist can honestly give you a simple answer for ANY problem posed by a complex civilized society.
You cannot answer because the Voluntaryists have no plan. Voluntaryists are idealists not realists.

Here's the thing: imagine a world where the State controlled even more aspects of society than it does today.
I don't argue for totalitarianism. I argue for liberty. The state does indeed have legitimate functions to preserve liberty.
Your complaint against free market anarchism is actually akin to something that anti-abolitionists used to criticize abolitionists: "But where will all these slaves find jobs without us deciding where they work?!?" Yes, that's a severe example, but imagine if we lived in a society where government decided who would date or who would marry. In that society, if one posited the option of freedom to create relationships, people would immediately argue, "But how will we find our mate? How will anyone ever go about finding the person they're supposed to marry?" Or if government decided your job/trade etc. If someone argued that people deserve the right to pick their own job, people would immediately respond: "But HOW are people going to find their job?"
Poor analogy... I refer you to the preamble... the intent of a republic.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The beauty of anarchism is that it is entirely unpredictable on a large scale. Order is created spontaneously, though, through large groups acting in their own individual interests. Look at the solutions that were promulgated in the not so "Wild" West before there was any government sovereignty. Look at how medieval Iceland created a private system for law and law enforcement before being overrun by the Norwegians several hundred years later. Look at the polycentric legal system of Somalia since its government fell.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like predictability. Somalia is not a society I embrace. I like order. Chaos sucks. Each of us having an opportunity to be heard before our peers is justice in an orderly society.

One of my great-uncles "wild west" (California gold rush) watched a man hang in 1850 for a crime he did not commit. A couple of days later, when they found the true criminal, they were so mortified by what they had done that the real thief was spared. Voluntary societies fail in justice, too.

There are examples out there of how such things could potentially work. And many more theoretical possibilities have been posed by philosophers.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether you have the faith in humanity to reject the notion that society can ONLY function through a monopoly on aggression. I personally believe that human society is based fundamentally on an undeniable sense of compassion that most folks feel for their fellow human beings. Said compassion has been scientifically proven. Yes, there are outliers who will have to be dealt with but the vast majority of folks truly want to find a way to work together and minimize conflict.
And I don't have faith that people will somehow automatically voluntarily respect each other and their property anytime soon.  If you do, then leave the keys to your car in the ignition. Or leave your bicycle unlocked.

Voluntaryists are likely the most honorable individuals on Earth, but they are too quick to give up their privacy for my tastes. And they are also the most naive of the human behavior of others.

I, for one, want a state for order and justice.
3  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 30, 2010, 01:32:45 PM
You did not bother to read what I wrote, did you unibonger?

I am asking a simple question. Property rights are invaluable to liberty. A state clearly defines property ownership.
Who in a voluntary society defines property boundaries? Anyone?
4  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 29, 2010, 04:20:34 PM
I still need to read those books.
Debating this philosophy is tiresome because the standard answer to my questions is always "read more." I've read quite a bit of Rothbard, Woods, Paul and I've been a libertarian since the 80's.

Anarcho-capitalists rarely/never present a "picture" of what society would look like under a voluntary system, or even answer the simple questions such as,"who designates real property boundaries in an anarchical environment?"  It's an important concept and vital to laissez-faire free market capitalism and liberty.

I see today's problems clearly as a central bank fiat money controlled political system which barely resembles the vision painted in the "Preamble."  An honest monetary system would limit government and fix many of the wrongs we endure today. The central banking cabal is the culprit. A well designed limited constitutional republic is the answer.
I've studied the constitution and while there are numerous problems with it, the concept created an America that has been a refuge from tyrants for many people throughout history and for opportunity and prosperity for many more; plus it can be amended as needed. I prefer limited government to some abstract concept that no one can clearly define and must be studied in depth to understand... especially when I view the Voluntary ideology as inferior in concept to begin with... i.e. self absorbed (selfish).

A monopoly in justice is appropriate for government because natural rights are the same for all of us, and equal justice is optimal.
I would shudder at the thought of your protection agency coming after me because someone mistakenly claimed that I violated your rights. I do not wish to deal with hundreds, or thousands, of protection agencies who are not accountable to a lawful authority.
5  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 29, 2010, 01:04:55 PM
Not really semantics, you can be as selfish as you wish without fear of being caged.

A limited government would not police the people, but employed a sheriff, courts and justice system to provide restitution to victims of violators of natural rights, imprison violent offenders, as well as, provide a safety net for people to prevent starvation, freezing, and dire circumstances.

There would be no reason to throw you in jail for hiring your own protection agency, but it would be redundant. Your protection agency would have to go through the government courts to demand justice.
6  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 29, 2010, 12:35:48 PM
If you are for natural rights then you should know that forcing another individual to help you violates their natural rights.
I would not force anyone to pay, but I would design taxation around products, excluding land, food, energy, communications, and housing. I would collect taxes on all other products for the collective good (help the unable people, sheriff, courts,etc) ... minimally, but take enough to pay for essential services.  If an individual simply refused to help society by opting out of taxes, then they would be selfish (not deserving of help when they need it) but free to do so.
7  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 29, 2010, 08:50:46 AM
    1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless,"

Which means that everyone is their own leader, in other words, everyone interprets the rules for themselves. Which means misunderstandings and chaos.

As Stefan points out, the "Owners" enjoy anarchy because the rules do not apply to them, but most people currently live under the tyranny of strict, over-burdensome laws/rules and "Owners" who have hired thugs to enforce them.

There are at least three fundamental flaws in not having collectively clearly stated rules, capture of violators, justice/restitution, and assistance for the indigent.
  • Property rights - All wealth comes from the earth (land, water, air). Mine it, grow it, or sew it. Who in an anarchical society determines property boundaries?
  • All taxation is theft - While technically accurate, that notion is a very selfish ideology. Self-ownership is inherent, but self-dependence is impossible. Some infants, some adolescents, some adults, and some elderly need help. While voluntary contributions are the most ideal, the most selfish individuals will not contribute because they fail to recognize that they themselves will likely need help someday.
  • DRO's would become the most powerful organizations, violate privacy, and initiate violence in the name of retribution and/or self-defense.

Liberty is only possible if natural rights are protected. I may be able to mostly protect, and provide for myself, but the fact that I cannot completely protect, and provide for myself means that I may, someday, need the assistance of others.
Legally binding social contracts (government) can clearly state the rules, provide assistance for capturing criminals, justice to provide restitution to victims, and assistance for the indigent.
Limited government does not have to be violent by definition and it does not have to be designed to expand into an empire.

The limited government I envision is non-aggressive.

8  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Proof of Anarchy on: October 27, 2010, 05:25:18 PM
This is why I am not an anarchist.

"The state is the best conceivable example of a functional anarchic system, because it functions almost entirely on the spontaneous enforcement of rules - without using violence." - Stefan Molyneux
"Thus the government is the best example of a perfectly functional state of anarchy." - Stefan Molyneux

Then, Stefan makes the leap that if anarchy works within the state, then it will work much better without the state.  I don't buy that argument. Stateless anarchy would work much like state sanctioned anarchy.

For liberty to prosper a limited republic that stays within it's bounds, collects taxes as necessary, but does not imprison non-violent violators is ideal.
9  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: The philosophy of liberty on: October 27, 2010, 02:14:52 PM
We need more of your kind. It's been like an echo-chamber around here. Everybody agreeing with each other! Ha!

What is your philosophical background, minarchy? How did you find us?
  • Anarcho-capitalism is ideology not reality
  • Sovereign Title to Land
  • Not all taxation should be viewed as theft.
  • Limited government is not only possible, but the best method of achieving liberty, peace and prosperity.
  • Current governments are controlled by elite oligarchies.
  • Laissez-faire free markets are as near perfect as the world achieves
  • The Internet is laissez-faire free market.
  • TV, Radio, Print, Education, et.al. are controlled opposition.
  • The people of the 21st century can achieve new enlightenment.
  • Other

From a link/ad at DailyPaul.
10  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: The philosophy of liberty on: October 27, 2010, 01:32:58 PM
Thanks Seth. Nice layout on the forum. While I am not an Anarchist, I am here to debate and learn.
11  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: The philosophy of liberty on: October 27, 2010, 12:44:11 PM
I disagree with the premise of "The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership."
Self-ownership is inherent; Self-dependence is impossible.

The philosophy of liberty is based on natural rights.
Natural Rights
    c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature
    "morally correct," O.E. riht "just, good, fair, proper, fitting, straight,"

For example, You are here; therefore, you have a right to be here. You need to eat; therefore, you have a right to eat, etc.
To enjoy liberty one must protect his/her natural rights.
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!