^On historical and scientific disclosure.

Expand?

The same elements that have proven your Marxian theories dead wrong.

Other than using the word communism, what exactly have I said that's 'Marxian'? Or are you just pursuing what seems to be the right-wing fashion of calling anything you disagree with 'Marxist'?

I justify property as necessary for the survival of man. I justify it on the premise that without property there is no to resolve disputes without killing eachother. I justify property because might does not equal right and without property the only way to resolve someone stealing from you is to kill them. Because after all if property doesn't exist than I take whatever the fuck I want without recourse.

I'll rephrase the question: on what basis do you justify your proposed property theory as better or more correct than any other theory?

Organizations are made up of individuals so the fuck what?

So your argument about the state not being an individual is irrelevant.

No I don't claim a monopoly of force on my property. I don't have the right to kill people because they are in my house.

There are plenty of things that the state doesn't have the right to do. Even if we're just talking practicality here, the state couldn't just declare that it was going to behead all children under the age of 10, there'd be too much resistance.

So what's the difference? What can you do on your property under your proposal that the state can't do on its territory right now?

this is the same thing the State does your consent is because you exist.

Precisely my point.

The State has existed for a long time. It's not just western style rule. Take the natives with their chiefs for example...

You can call practically anything a state if having a 'chief' makes you one.

You want an example of the economy see the industrial revolution for both economic growth and the efficiency of division of labour.

Because the state didn't intervene in the economy during the Industrial Revolution at all, right?

No shit what's your point?

So they cannot be abdicated.

It's not an all or nothing thing it's a my way on my land and if you don't agree good for you go somewhere else.

That's an all or nothing approach. And also it's forcing your system on everyone else.

It's the same logic as the 'homesteading' theory.

I'm iffy on the homesteading issue anyway. And I don't particularly care anyway.

Then on what basis do you justify property?

That's precisely the power the state has.

The State isn't an "individual" it's an organization run on theft[/quote]

And organisations are made up of individuals.

that claims the rights of an individual and further more claims the right to restrict your right. Fail. The State has the "right" to murder people too. Are you saying that without the State murder and theft wouldn't exist? Grow up.

Rather, the state claims the right to murder people as part of it's claim of a monopoly of force over its territory, which is precisely what I'm getting at.

A state is characterised by a monopoly on the use of force over a given area.

If you claim property, i.e. exclusive control over an area of land, you are claiming a monopoly on the use of force over that given area.

How about this little thing called consent.

See reply I put above SinCityVoluntaryist - in this situation he's bound to it regardless.

Tell me where is this Stateless society?

Practically any society before the state came into existence. Take pre-colonial Madagascar if you want a specific example.

Furthermore the economy exists because it arises naturally out of human action. Division of Labour results from a desire to improve efficiency. These things exist despite of the State.

Expand? Also, examples?

What do you think a right is? Do you have a right to something or a right from something?

Irrelevant. The point I'm getting at is that it must apply universally.

By getting rid of the force which maintains it.

Force maintains property? So then theft is property gotcha.

If by theft you mean taking something for your own that was previously someone else's, then yes.

I don't I just don't think the others are right.

That's not exactly what you said though. You implied an 'all or nothing' choice - that either there will be your property theory or people won't consider stuff 'theirs' at all. Whereas they might consider stuff 'theirs', just in a different sense to the way you advocate.

The violation of the non-aggression axiom.

Define aggression then.

Just a reminder: You can't define force in terms of aggression and also define aggression in terms of force.

The market exists outside the state machine. When you make a trade on the free market, you don't go to the state and ask for permission to make that trade. You are engaging in a voluntary agreement that is absent of force.

Just because you don't get the state's permission to do something doesn't mean you'd be doing that something if the state wasn't there. When I call for the abolition of the state, I don't ask the state's permission, but obviously if the state didn't exist, I wouldn't be doing it anyway.

People who buy drugs with state currency don't ask the state's permission to do so, in fact they do it in the face of state opposition, but they still wouldn't be doing it if the state didn't exist.

Just because the state's not right on your back telling you whether to do something doesn't mean it's not having an effect on whether you do it.

Historically, pre-state societies had economies based on gifting (and occasionally virtual credit) rather than exchange.

"On the contrary, contracts exist precisely to constrain choice, that's the point."

 No. You, my friend, are missing the point. Whether or not a contract restricts someone's right to do something isn't the main issue. What needs to be pointed out is that contracts are voluntary in their enforcement because a person has a choice as to whether or not he wants to sign it. On the free market, where competition is encouraged, people have a choice as to who they want to enter into contractual obligations with. If they don't agree with something in the contract, they have the power not to put pen to paper. What part of that don't you get?

And people who change their minds? What if they were drunk when they signed the contract, for example?

Freedom is in the moment. If I want to exercise that freedom, and you stop me, whether I signed a bit of paper in the past giving you permission to do so is irrelevant, I want to exercise it now.

Because you don't know what everyone wants. If an individual does not agree with object A, why should he be binded to it like everyone else? A contract helps in this matter because it allows parties to know who is in agreement and who is not.

He already is bound to it, and more, in the specific situation here. Say a village's inhabitants have a 'joint ownership contract' over a village hall they've built that gives them certain rights regarding it, and that everyone who currently lives there is a party to said contract. Then another guy comes along. Unless he can just treat the village hall as unowned, he is bound to the contract, just without the rights that come from signing it.

Wrong. Under the principle of homesteading, the land becomes the property of the individual who put his energy into it. Read up on Rothbard's definition of homesteading.

Yes, and I'm explaining why this is bullshit. An object is still the same object regardless of how it ended up as such. To quote Menger on the LTV:

"Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labour is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labour or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. "

The same applies to 'homesteading'. Whether a patch of fertile land was so naturally that fertile or had to be laboured on to make it so has no effect on the functions it performs. So why should we care?

Oh, really? So if you break into my house and violate my property by threatening my life (my most important property) and what I own (i.e. money), the "why" I'm excluding you by fighting back to defend what's rightfully mine doesn't matter to you? Do you have any idea how absolutely idiotic you sound right now?

Matter to me? You added that bit in yourself, I was saying it doesn't matter in terms of the general principle.

But I'll try to make the point clearer if it's so difficult to understand:

If you have property over some land, you can restrict me from walking on it.

You might restrict me because you believe my walking over the land would be dangerous to you, and have very good and valid reasons for believing this.

You might restrict me because you believe my walking over the land would be dangerous to you, but have no good reason whatsoever for believing this.

Or you might restrict me because you just personally dislike me.

The logic of property rights does not take this reasoning into account; if you want to restrict me, you can regardless of your reasons for doing so.

This is why it's impossible to take you anarcho-communist freaks seriously: you all live in a fantasy land where no has a right to anything. Would you please get the fuck out before you continue to insult my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone here? Thank you.

Wow, resorting to insults. Impressive....

To the first one: This seems like it's hinting at the labour theory of value. GTFO.

It's the same logic as the 'homesteading' theory.

To the second: So the fuck what?

That's precisely the power the state has.

Yes and...?

As I said to SinCityVoluntaryist: what's the point?

And do they [blackmarkets]use state currency?

The structure and mindset of state society permeates practically everywhere.

So what? And not all black markets use state currency ever hear of Bitcoin?

You asked for evidence of the efficiency and spontaneity of the division of labour. I would like to ask to look around. Admire that monitor and that keyboard is this not a product of division of labour? Was it mandated that it be so? I think ye to the first and nay to the second.

We're living in a state society. How is any structure which develops in that context 'spontaneous'?

Are you seriously stupid enough to ask this question? Do you believe the State to be omniscient and omnipotent? Spontaneity is slowed by the State but the State doesn't mandate the creation of everything in existence.

You're not getting it so I suppose I'd better get to the point. The things that characterise capitalism - the market economy, commodity money, division of labour, etc - came about because of the state. Studies of pre-state societies find them not to have these things.

Rights don't exist they are a construct.

Correct, but that doesn't change the concept of what a right is.

I'm not applying any system. The absence of property is not a system.

How does this lack of property come about?
How is the absence of property achieved?

By getting rid of the force which maintains it.

Do people magically stop believing shit is theirs?

Why do you assume your concept of ownership/possession/etc is the only possible one?

For example, some tribal languages have no way of distinguishing between use and ownership - the idea that they might be different simply has never occurred to them. Similarly, the Micronesian Rai stones often have their ownership transferred, but the owner can't just do what he likes with the stones because they're considered to serve a social purpose.

What of non members?

What about them?

If you claim land, to prevent me from crossing that land you would have to use force. I wouldn't have to use force to cross it.

To cross land without the owners permission is called trespass. What if someone didn't want you in their home and you entered anyway? Are you not forcing your way into their home?

Define 'force'.

Things like local courts and arbitrators end up being largely about local public opinion. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does kind of defeat the point of advocating anything.

Advocating voluntary interaction is pointless? Gotcha, I'll just start shooting people I disagree with. Happy?

Advocating a system of rules based on public opinion is not advocating voluntary interaction, it's advocating whatever popular opinion is.

By claiming that he has no right to property you are claiming a right to restrict him not the other way around.

If you own a beach, you can dig a hole and make a sandcastle on it.
If a beach is unowned, you can still dig a hole and make a sandcastle on it.

The difference is what other people are allowed to do.

...And your problem with this is what?

Well what's the point of it, more than anything? Rather than having a list (that has to be continually amended) of load of people who have rights regarding Object A, why not just say those rights regarding Object A apply to everyone?

You seem to be completely forgetting that contracts, at their core, are voluntary in nature.

On the contrary, contracts exist precisely to constrain choice, that's the point.

The rights and incentives outlined in a contract are not forced upon those that do not want to sign it and agree to the terms.

So if I didn't agree to A and B's joint ownership contract of something, I can use it as I like?

"Why are the benefits split when the grower did all the work? The land-owner didn't make the land"

And how the hell would you know that? If the owner of the land cultivates the land and prepares it for harvest through the process of homesteading, he has a right to it.

Why? For all I care the land was put there already fully cultivated by fairies; it's still the same land.

How do you figure will as the only factor that must be considered in the case of private property? If you come own to my land, for example, and threaten me or the items that I own, my arbitrary will is not the only factor in my reaction to your presence.

But it is the defining factor. Why you want to exclude me is not a factor in whether you can or not.

Plus, let me ask you this: what do you define as "excluding you from it"?

Preventing me from touching/using/etc it.

Those are joint ownership contracts, between individuals.

No "ancap" has objected to joint ownership contracts.

There remains a problem here. Contracts are necessarily discriminatory rather than indifferent. Rights in a contract exist only on account of being a party to the contract. To put it another way, for a community to own something in common under a contract, all new community members would have to be added to it.

Someone owns everything.

if they were unowned.

 

Then it looks like you need to take a moment to understand how private property is actually supposed to work in those situations. In the case of growing food on someone else's land (I am assuming this is done without the land owner's permission) the benefits of the farming would be split between the land owner and the person who actually grew the stuff. Same applies with borrowed (if not stolen) tools.

Why are the benefits split when the grower did all the work? The land-owner didn't make the land, he makes no sacrifice (moreover, why would it matter if he did? The land is the same whether he made it or it just appeared)

It's nothing to do with communes vs. markets - those are just different modes of organisation. I think it's very likely that, in a communist society, there would be people who don't want to participate in communes. The difference is over what happens regarding objects.

Explain that difference.

Propertarianism claims an absolute and exclusive control over an object. If an area of land is my property, I can exclude you from it for no other reason than my arbitrary will.

So you condone rape?

How do you arrive at this?

Black markets. They exist everywhere that people choose to do anything that is outside of what is allowed by statute law.

And do they use state currency?

The structure and mindset of state society permeates practically everywhere.

History. As far back as human beings' behaviors are possible to track, trade goods have existed. Cowrie shells, obsidian, flint.

Actually these things are generally examples of what anthropologists call 'social currency' - used in marriages, coming of age ceremonies, etc, but very rarely if ever for everyday things like food.

You asked for evidence of the efficiency and spontaneity of the division of labour. I would like to ask to look around. Admire that monitor and that keyboard is this not a product of division of labour? Was it mandated that it be so? I think ye to the first and nay to the second.

We're living in a state society. How is any structure which develops in that context 'spontaneous'?

That is a permission issue.  They have permission to use the means of production, and are paid to do so, in return for the product.   If they do not agree to this, they do not have permission.

If a right is a right it cannot be abdicated.

Would a commune let me sit there and take what ever I want?  Would they tell me to go elsewhere if I were not being productive?

Are you a member of the commune? What rules a commune opts to have is up to its members.

As does the commune.

No, a commune is merely a members' organisation. It probably does have a geographical concentration, but that#s quite different.

How does that force you to do anything?   You are attempting to apply your system on them.

I'm not applying any system. The absence of property is not a system.

If you leave people alone, then you won't have conflict.  If you go initiate force, then you have a problem.  That is not forcing you to comply, that is you attempting to force them to comply.  It is not a contradiction, as you are the aggressor in the situation.  

If you claim land, to prevent me from crossing that land you would have to use force. I wouldn't have to use force to cross it.