Daily Anarchist Forum
July 04, 2022, 09:57:49 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] 2
1  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 05:39:35 PM
Quote
People lived in groups before agriculture as well.

This is a fair point so perhaps it's more correct to say that society created agriculture and that lead society to create the state.

I don't think agriculture is to blame for the state, agriculture is a technology, technology isn't concious.

Of course people discovered domestication and obviously thought it's a great idea Smiley
On the technology part I'm with Zerzan in that technology is not neutral. Technology affects your choices and in the context of competition every advantage is important regardless of your opinion on that advantage. It's a "ends justify the means" kind of thing. For example someone in a western society that has an aversion to computers would have difficulties managing without.
2  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 05:27:34 PM
Quote
Agriculture directly lead to energy surplus which lead to elites forming up, caste system, changes in religious systems, etc. Statism is just the last incarnation of those religions. So you could argue that agriculture lead directly to the creation of the State but indirectly to the creation of statism.

Agriculture lead to society and society created the State.

I hope you'll stick around and continue to talk to us and learn!

Peace be with you!

People lived in groups before agriculture as well.

Thanks for your feedback and learning is what I'm here for! Peace!
3  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 05:26:07 PM
You do not say exactly what you believe but because you seem not to like the ownership of private property you are similar to anarcho communists.

If you look in the intro section I've said that I gravitate between mutualism and primitivism.

Go to the "General questions" thread on the other page of this website. The first category is called anarco capitalist reference list.
On there read Rothbard's  piece on The death wish of the anarco communists.

I've started this thread because I was hoping to fast track to the meat of the problem. I'll hopefully get into the literature sometime soon.

There are several articles on why monopolies cannot exist in a free market (I don't know if you think your arguments are right because you think what we have now is a free market.. it is not. What we have now is highly corrupted by statist favoritism and interference.)

There are some mainstream economists that argue that. I didn't do that in this thread because I don't believe it's true. MAM is right that the black market is a special case of the market but my observation is still valid in that you can't really talk about the general case by analyzing only the special case.

People that have not studied economics, oversimplify economics and use their gut feel which is almost always wrong.
They tend to think trade evolves mainly around land ownership ... it does not. land is just one of many millions of commodities that are forever traded and changes hands. Some people own a lot of it so what, some people own a lot of pizzas and paperclips.. so what.. it is impossible to corner all of the market in an area under free trade. Like i said Bill Gates sold software and became one of the richest people on earth, yet he did not evolve into a horrible landlord that treats his tenants like dirt... the way you describe... he is too busy worrying about competition taking away his business.

If you refer to me, I don't. I actually live in the real world, not on your computer screen Smiley I know what trade looks like and I also know that various governments claim their jurisdiction starting from the land. Land is a necessity, if you don't believe me try living without it.

I didn't describe the 1st scenario like you portray it here. Over generations anything can happen, the question is how likely it is and what precautions can be made in advance. BTW, Gates is a shady character involved in eugenics.

Economic rookies think it is possible to force people to buy something against their will..
 it is not. In a free market sellers WANT you to buy their product, they compete for your business, they have to constantly improve their product so you will buy from them and not the competition
Free market system is the only viable system where the consumer rules with his vote a thousand times a day and the seller is at his mercy.

Don't you pay taxes against your will or you're referring to what happens after government is gone?
4  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
Quote
Anthropology is not a hard science but neither is economy.
I think you're confusing agriculture with the State, or maybe you're confusing society with the State, I didn't get statism from that anthropology quote...

Agriculture directly lead to energy surplus which lead to elites forming up, caste system, changes in religious systems, etc. Statism is just the last incarnation of those religions. So you could argue that agriculture lead directly to the creation of the State but indirectly to the creation of statism.

Quote
Is there a requirement in the NAP to prevent hugely advantageous transactions with outsiders for the resources owned?
No. Why? Do you think there should be? Regulation is coercion, and is a slippery slope. Most people try to fix issues without any notion of the root cause, and they either have 0 effect or <0 effect. Regulating exchange will lead back to the state, which is what we're trying to avoid...

No, I don't think there should be regulation, it was a misunderstanding of mine regarding monopolies.


Other than that I don't feel there's anything else left to debate Smiley Property rights might be imperfect but we can't return to the Paleolithic either. Anarchy means freedom and people will decide how that looks like.
5  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 12:26:02 PM
Albert, you're right, just tell me exactly what evidence do you seek. I made those assertions thinking they were obvious.

You claim things like "the free markets" caused statism... how do you get that?? You cannot just claim stuff like that because you believe it , you have to prove it.

Free market
Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services.
[...]
According to Dean Russell, the free mar­ket economy is the key to all free­doms. If the market is totally free, each person has complete freedom of speech, press, and religion. But if the market is totally controlled, there is no freedom in those or any other areas.

Link between the free market and statism:
By around 15,000 years ago, Homo sapiens had spread to every major habitable landmass, as a single, inter-breeding species. There were no other significant populations of bipedal hominid species like Neandertals or Denisovans. People were in Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

People lived from gathering and hunting. Around 15,000 years ago, in some parts of the world, this would change, as people began more intensively cultivating plants and herding animals. These processes are known as domestication or the transition to agriculture, conceived as a watershed moment in human history, the time when human history begins. Note the similar root words behind culture, agriculture, and cultivation.

According to dominant mythology, prior to cultivation, humans lived in a “wild man” state, not very different from the non-human animals they hunted. With domestication, humans tame and control these wild animals, and in the process begin to tame and control themselves.

Again, in the traditional view, agriculture makes possible craft-specialization, urban life, writing, and the state. Agriculture is the watershed moment when humans began taming themselves and controlling their environment, eventually leading to the splendor of civilization.

Anthropology is not a hard science but neither is economy.

You do not know the basics of economics that are true to everybody regardless of your philosophical belief.

I agree and I've never disputed that. People always act in their perceived self interest, even when coerced. Nothing we use as a species is free from an energy standpoint, even information.

Only after grasping that can you study the differences between the schools of economics.
You don't know the difference between Marxist economics, classic economics, Austrian economics and Keynesian economics

Do I need to study economics to understand why the 1st scenario is unlikely? I doubt that, but that's my opinion Smiley We have a long historical record of people striving to conquer other people for various reasons. I find that reason enough to question the stability of voluntarism in the long term, especially since we don't have a historical record regarding voluntarism to see how exactly does it perform in real life.

You don't know the definitions of monopoly, cartels, free markets, black markets,
and concepts like "amassing wealth"

Black markets:
A black market is a market in which certain goods or services are routinely traded in a manner contrary to the laws or regulations of the government in power.

Monopoly
A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service.
[...]
"A state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival."
[...]
"Monopoly exists when a firm has control over its price."
[...]
"The only seller of any given good."
[...]
A monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group.

I've said that neo-feudalism doesn't constitute a monopoly because there is competition between various landlords which have acquired their property (land, water, energy) justly (without breaking the NAP), and there's competition among them, not to mention that there's no state to grant them privileges. Nevertheless, if they own their properties (like the scenario goes), they can use them how they wish as long as they don't break the NAP. Is there a requirement in the NAP to prevent hugely advantageous transactions with outsiders for the resources owned?

If your argument is that ownership cannot extend to such a large degree, then companies cannot own land? A group of people can associate and pool their resources for gaining a profit from speculating with necessary goods. They could build residential areas and provide customers for all their needs (housing, facilities, security, etc.) expecting a profit, they could manage huge agricultural estates, fresh water sources, etc. Why is that not going to happen or breaking the NAP in some way?

Cartels
A cartel is an association of independent firms or individuals for the purpose of exerting some form of restrictive or monopolistic influence on the production or sale of a commodity. The most common arrangements are aimed at regulating prices or output or dividing up markets. Members of a cartel maintain their separate identities and financial independence while engaging in common policies.
[...]
If pooling resources is more profitable, then the cartel will merge into one company.
If it proves to be less profitable, the individual members of the cartel will break off.
If it doesn’t break from within, an outsider, noticing the enormous profitability, will enter the market, and this dooms the cartel.

Landlords might cooperate or not, but all will have discretionary power over their owned resources unless they don't break the NAP or others don't break the NAP by taking their justly acquired property away. So as long as they don't rock the boat too hard too fast most people having contractual agreements with them will continue to honor them out of convenience (that's why I gave the example about junk food, drug addiction, etc. behaviors which are very damaging to the individual on the long term but on the short term are convenient). Some people will move to other landlords but I don't expect a very large difference in pricing or conditions to occur in the long term.

"Amassing wealth"
Some landlords will lose their wealth because of debts, natural disasters, charity, etc. and that may be partitioned into smaller holdings or gobbled up by neighboring landlords, but there is a historical record of centralization of power. I agree that it didn't happen in a free market (since the earliest states must have appeared before wealth storage was possible) but individuals strive for whatever goals they wish to accomplish for a number of reasons, even when a neutral observer might conclude they are not acting in their best interest.

because you do not have economic background you just conclude that it leads to elitism and new governments- there is no proof of that, in economics- the onus is on you to prove your points

A large landlord can have hugely disparate power relative to his tenants. That can go away if the NAP is broken by either the tenants or the landlord but the only reason a landlord will do that is to create a monopoly, otherwise he would be forced to allow his tenants to leave his property if they don't agree with his conditions anymore. As I've mentioned before most people will strive to get the maximum out of every opportunity and at the same time are limited by convenience. Some landlords will offer great deals to tenants but there's only so much they can service, while a change in ownership by inheritance might drastically change the conditions for the tenants as well. Things that were free a couple of generations ago might not be free anymore and still people don't embark in mass transit towards other countries.

It is not possible for us to teach a whole discipline of economics in a few paragraphs on a blog post.

It's not necessary. References are great.
6  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 06:53:25 AM
Thanks for the references! I'm aware of Spooner's Constitution of No Authority and I'm aware that anarchy is not a new concept. I've been also looking up various scenarios for years and don't consider myself an expert in anarchist theory.

The fact is that I don't ask anyone to prove things for me. I've laid out some scenarios and asked the community here if they have similar concerns or if those scenarios are impossible. So far I got replies that in a nutshell mean it won't happen because of magic or that they can happen but it's still better than the status quo.

Quote
Why? I don't understand.
Because it's a matter of definition. To understand this you need to go back to the begining and learn about exchange, and coercion.

That's pretty vague, but ok. I don't really care about feudalism. My concern is that a big landowner can indirectly force people to accept his demands in the form of a contract, all without breaking the NAP. Big wealth disparity means power and little choice for those without it that don't have direct access to means for survival. No monopolies are required since this is done under contract. If people don't want to sign the contract they can leave the property, but in practical terms they might not have the resources to do so or there might be nowhere to go that is different, just another landlord with pretty much the same expectations.

Quote
The most important issue here is that this behavior (amassing wealth) will probably lead to a new elite forming up and acting like a government of sorts leading to a cyclic series of events.
I'm not sure who invented this, but it's a common argument heard from the mouths of communists and socialists. It's refuted by adherence to the NAP in accordance to rule of the monopoly i.e. that it requires coercion to maintain. There's also Homesteading to consider.

I'm sure scenarios like this are pretty old but being uttered by communists or socialists doesn't make them invalid in itself.
A land area can be partitioned by a number of owners, much smaller than the total population living there (let's say 5000 for the current US territory). How is that a monopoly? By the NAP and property rights, those land owners can ask the rest the leave their property if they don't agree with their rules in the form of a valid contract.

Homesteading occurs even if the owner maintains his land using other people bound by contract to him. If that's false, no company can own land since it can't maintain the land without employees.

Quote
What's the purpose of property rights?
Property is a concept used to resolve conflicts over scare objects.

We're in agreement. Once resources (land, water, energy, etc.) are mostly owned by landlords, the owners can impose any conditions for use they choose and still be fully in accord with the NAP.

Quote

How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear plant? If the environmental impact is taken into consideration, how expensive is the electricity produced?
The impact on the environment is minuscule if the plant is properly maintained and the waste disposed of properly. http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/07/07/nuclear-energy-efficiency-vs-fossil-fuels-oilgas-in-power-load-factorsenergy-density-and-waste/

At the present the waste isn't disposed of properly, however through the enforcement of property rights it will be.

From the link you shared:
Quote
Nuclear Waste is one of the most difficult waste products to transport and store because of its dangerous radioactive effects.Given the long life of some of the transuranic elements Nuclear Waste has to be stored in a safe manner for thousands of years which is a tough given that the chances of leakage become enormous in such a long time scale.Storing of Nuclear Waste has to be performed in a extremely complicated manner which is also enormously costly.Also there are problems of NIMBY with Nuclear Waste Storage as nearby residents don’t want such toxic waste stored anywhere close especially as it does not bring any economic or social benefits.Not there is no permanent storage site despite many decades of planning and billions of dollars being spent.While Japan and Europe reprocess the fuel in the hope that they will be used again that remains a dream with thousands of tons of HLW piling up.USA does not reprocess and also has more than 60,000 tons of nuclear waste waiting for a final home.Till then most of the spent nuclear fuel is being stored in spent fuel pools and dry casks making them vulnerable just like another Fukushima

That doesn't support your position. BTW, once the government is gone, who is going to claim ownership over this waste and dispose of it safely? The cost would be astronomical over time.

Quote
A black market is not a free market. Sellers and buyers should take precautions while doing those transactions so that they minimize the risk of getting caught and punished.

A black market is "black" because of coercive interference of the State. The NAP is specifically against coercion.

That is somehow refuting what I've said how?

Quote
The fact remains that free-markets have lead to statism. If you replace the belief in authority with the belief in property rights the outcome will probably be the same making voluntarism a sort of reset in a larger cycle that ends up in statism. Our ancestors fucked up because they invested in a broken system and we continue to do so.
The State is a construct of the mind and every time an individual rejects it it dies a little more. The State isn't a beast to be slain, it is a myth to be laughed at. This isn't a fight for a piece of ground it's a fight for the mind.

I'm fully aware of that and the work of Larken Rose and Marc Stevens. I'm not arguing that voluntarism couldn't happen. I'm worried about it's long term evolution (generations).
7  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
Yes it is difficult to debate if we speak two different languages.

For instance your statement "free markets don't exist" is an economic statement. You may think that is true but unless you know a little economics we cannot discuss that. Until you know what all economists believe in we also cannot discuss what Austrians believe.

If Joe meets Suzie and trades a potato for her scarf, that is an example of a free trade. Clearly it exists.

That's a black market. The reason Joe and Suzie get away with bartering is that the value exchanged is so low that parasites don't even bother. They can get way much value for their effort by selective targeting.

Neither Austrian economists nor other economists claim that what goes on now globally is a free market.
Ever since your example of 10,000 years ago, there have been many many forms of authoritarian interference in the free markets- I think we both agree.For most of those 10,000 years the scenario you describe did exist.(few landlords owned all assets) 99% of people were serfs and everything belonged to the lords, including the food and the water.
The fact that you can sit there in front of a computer and write an opinion with knowledge from books you had access to and electricity that you freely buy, and food that you choose, means that that scenario has changed. 99% of the people of the world do not work for no wages anymore and have property rights and choices in an economic sense.

This increase in relative individual liberty is caused by much more available energy. It is in the interest of the parasites that their hosts are as productive as they can be.
The electricity that I buy comes from a monopoly. I must agree with their terms or get ready to generate my own probably getting through some legal hoops in the process.
Having limited choice is not that useful. Democratic voting has choices but I think we can agree it's useless. If you have to get a job to survive, it's nice when you can choose from a list of employers and fields of activity, but if all jobs have a schedule from 9 to 5 where's the choice in that? It's the same choice you have to relocate to another country if you don't like the conditions in the native one.

That is the difference between economics and philosophy. Philosophically you might argue correctly that you are indebted to the state and their laws control you- and that is still a form of serfdom, we agree. That is why we are both anarchists.
But until you have some economic laws that we agree on (and it doesn't even have to be Austrian economics which is just a subsection) on I cannot prove to you that your worst case scenario is impossible in an anarchist society and can ONLY exist if the state interferes.

Not at all, you don't need to make an argument from authority. This is like some conspiracy theorists do these days, popping on some site making assertions about a subject and when asked for evidence saying: "google it, I won't do the research for you. Wake up!" Smiley

Make your argument why the 1st scenario is unlikely and I'll take a look at it point by point. If my criticism of your argument is wrong it will be plenty obvious.
8  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 01:28:47 AM
Quote
Why do you both mention monopolies? I never implied such a thing.

A feudal system requires monopolies by definition.

Why? I don't understand.

Quote
If he can't enforce his claims he doesn't own, by definition. The assumption was that he (or more exact one family) is the owner.

It doesn't matter if it's one person or one hundred, the claim is erroneous. I mean there are millions of people working for the US govt and they can't keep people from crossing the border they've claimed.

It depends on the methodology used and the willingness of the tenants to protect the privileges they've received. As an example: statists that report to the police or racists that beat immigrants up.

Quote
Before that I wrote: "The banking families amassed huge wealth over generations by running a scam."

I'm aware of what you said, the scam is the problem not the wealth. Amassing wealth over generations is a common strategy. 

The most important issue here is that this behavior (amassing wealth) will probably lead to a new elite forming up and acting like a government of sorts leading to a cyclic series of events.

Quote
I'm not disputing that bad things happen but some of them can be easily avoided, for instance banning bombs in residential areas. There's no useful purpose served by a bomb in a residential area. They could be used in self defense only if you can reasonably guarantee no collateral damage. But that would be an infringement of the "property rights" sacred cow.

Replace bomb with gun and you're restating the same tired old argument. Who are you to tell people what they can own and where they can put their property? If you do that, you're guaranteed to have people wanting to restrict what you do. It reduces to absurdity. All variations between the absurd and property rights are arbitrary. I imagine that other people will agree with said arbitrary assertions. Create a community that agrees with you and ya'll can live in one neighbourhood, with your rules. I don't care, I'm just not going to live there.

What's the purpose of property rights?

Quote
Nuclear plants are a dumb idea, but that's irrelevant. I was pointing out that fallout from nuclear plants is more dangerous than fallout from nuclear bombs.
I disagree, nuclear power is a good idea. It's the most efficient means to produce electricity that currently exists. Most people are against it because they're ignorant of the causes of various plant meltdowns.

How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear plant? If the environmental impact is taken into consideration, how expensive is the electricity produced?

Quote
The reason why I've said that Austrian economics is not proven is that it deals with the free-market which doesn't exist. Until a free-market can be examined it's just a theory.

A free market is created every time two people make an exchange. That market is distorted by the State often. Everyday we experience the free market. Do you report all you make to the loving government? Most people don't, those instances are the free market at work.

A black market is not a free market. Sellers and buyers should take precautions while doing those transactions so that they minimize the risk of getting caught and punished.

Quote
To give a counter-example against Austrian economic theory and it's predictions: statism. We started with a free-market, in the sense there was no state at least until the agricultural revolution 10 000 years ago, and we arrived nonetheless at the present situation.

The free market happens millions if not billions of times a day. While the free market has existed on larger scales at various times through out history thus far each instance has seen the State interfere and destroy it. Has it occurred to you that we have government today because our ancestors fucked up?

Another possible explanation for the rise of government is as follows: A individual decides he doesn't want to work to sustain his life, so he finds someone weaker than himself and enslaves them. Later on the system evolves as the masters begin to figure out just what the populace will take without fighting back. So the masters call themselves king and prey upon the superstition of the people calling themselves gods (Pharaohs amongst many others). When the people begin to believe in personal deities they claim that they rule by divine right. As people discover that Kings are a bad idea the masters change their format and create democracy and claim that democratic rule is rule by the people. Then the masters create Republics to continue the desception. But the entire time the masters have remained. The adept masters are the ones whose names' you don't know. The president changes and so do the senators but the beaurcrats remain, these are the people that are always there feeding on the masses and creating their arbitrary rules, claiming legitimacy. Sound like conspiracy? It is, it's just not a ludicrous one. 

Austrian economic theory posits that distortions in the market caused by coercion lead to bad outcomes. That's the gist of it but there are hundreds of books to read on Austrian Economics and that's a small subset of economic thought to study.

The fact remains that free-markets have lead to statism. If you replace the belief in authority with the belief in property rights the outcome will probably be the same making voluntarism a sort of reset in a larger cycle that ends up in statism. Our ancestors fucked up because they invested in a broken system and we continue to do so.
9  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 23, 2013, 04:11:36 PM
Hey fujiinn,
Which books on economics have you actually read?
In order to have a meaningful argument you must understand a few basic economic principles.
The study of economics is not a philosophy or a political science, it just says if you do these things to the economy these things will happen. 
I don't care if you agree with the conclusions but you are not qualified to dispute something you have not studied.

I've read no books on economics. Do I seem to be ignorant on that part? The reason why I've said that Austrian economics is not proven is that it deals with the free-market which doesn't exist. Until a free-market can be examined it's just a theory.

To give a counter-example against Austrian economic theory and it's predictions: statism. We started with a free-market, in the sense there was no state at least until the agricultural revolution 10 000 years ago, and we arrived nonetheless at the present situation.
10  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 23, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
Quote
Isn't this the logical progression: NAP (morality) -> one owns himself -> one owns the fruits of his labor (property rights)?

I've been struggling with this for a while. Self Ownership is just a short hand way of explaining that other people don't have the right to enslave you. The reality is you don't own yourself, you simply are. How can you own something who's very existence is required before you can own something? It's never really made sense to me. But I digress. Read Wendy McElroy's article on the blog here for more information.

I was pointing out how most ancap property arguments that I've seen are built. Thanks for the reference!

Quote
This is irrelevant. The feudal system was bad in itself.

It was mentioned to point out that even when you don't have moral restrictions on the use of violence it was still impossible to create a giant monopoly. The larger the despotic regime is the weaker it is look at Rome and the US for conformation.

Why do you both mention monopolies? I never implied such a thing.

Quote
If one owns all the land in NA he can request rent to any inhabitants of NA. As long as critical resources like land and water are owned, who cares you can buy trinkets to amuse yourself after slaving away the day for your landlord?
This is erroneous even if one single man claimed to own the entire continent it would be impossible to enforce such a claim.

If he can't enforce his claims he doesn't own, by definition. The assumption was that he (or more exact one family) is the owner.

Quote
Some of the richest men started from scratch and now own the banking cartel with it's financial executive branches like the IMF and the World Bank.

So what?

I was replying to this:
Some of the world's richest men started from scratch. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet.
Knowledge and entrepreneurial skill make you rich, but you need to have a valuable product that others want to buy.

Before that I wrote: "The banking families amassed huge wealth over generations by running a scam."

Quote
You're absolutely right, I'm just exploring the limitations of the NAP and ways it can be improved.

If you can improve it I'm all ears, I'm just not sure that it can be done. Bad things happen, we can't stop them, to me the goal shouldn't be to stop bad things from happening so much as to have maximum recourse for when they happen. I'm not saying that we should let bad things happen only that they will happen. Liberty gives the most recourse.

I think I've hinted that exclusive property rights tend to be more of a nuisance than a benefit in the long term.

Quote
As far as I know the Austrian economic theory is yet to be proven and the monopoly part is irrelevant to the 1st scenario, unless by that you mean that a small group of people control all the necessary resources like land, water and energy.


People have to be violating the NAP to have a monopoly. Standard Oil was a so called "monopoly" yet it never controlled 100% of the petrol market and it's assets had been significantly reduced (from 70% of the market to 30% if I remember correctly) before the anti trust laws came in a dismantled even more of it. Unless the competition is being killed or kidnapped they will take advantage of the larger firm's slip ups and eat their lunch.

Again the monopoly part that I've said nothing about. I suspect that you both are saying that the 1st scenario can happen only if one landlord gets ALL the land, which is false. The favorite cop-out of statists is "take it or leave it", while it's obvious that leaving the country you were born in (I mean the geographical area) for another doesn't solve the underlying issue that you are considered property by any and all governments. So a tenant might leave to another landlord but in practice he will do it only if it's convenient. Otherwise we wouldn't have junk food, drug abuse, injustice, etc.

Quote
I'm not advocating for statist gun control. The problem with bombs is that you can't use them without collateral damage except in isolated areas. By definition they have a blast radius that can contain good and bad people alike.

There is no such thing as a weapon that discriminates, bullets, bombs, knives kill everyone equally. You can't stop bad things from happening.

I'm not disputing that bad things happen but some of them can be easily avoided, for instance banning bombs in residential areas. There's no useful purpose served by a bomb in a residential area. They could be used in self defense only if you can reasonably guarantee no collateral damage. But that would be an infringement of the "property rights" sacred cow.

Quote
A radioactive stink bomb would do the job just fine and you only need regular explosives and nuclear plant waste for that, both being highly available.

I don't think they let anyone buy nuclear waste, I wouldn't if it were my waste. They probably have guards on that shit too. Storing nuclear waste isn't as simple as putting it in a plastic tub in your garage.

There's plenty of waste being dumped all over the planet at this moment. Last I've heard the African coastline is a favorite destination. I'm pretty sure that over time the cost of guarding the nuclear waste, not to mention safely storing, is too expensive.

Quote
Considering that nuclear plants accidents are orders of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear bombs in terms of fallout, I would disagree.

Do you know what caused Chernobyl? Hint: it wasn't because nuclear plants are inherently unstable and dangerous.

Nuclear plants are a dumb idea, but that's irrelevant. I was pointing out that fallout from nuclear plants is more dangerous than fallout from nuclear bombs.

Quote
I agree with Hanzo that morality is subjective but if we go down the route of utilitarianism we might just as well end up in a technocratic dystopia like The Venus Project.
Just because one is an anarchist doesn't mean that they're a utilitarian.

That's not at all what I've said. I was replying to this:
I went through the same stage a while back, when I realized my view of property and natural rights were all wrong. I didn't buy rothbard's natural rights explanation anymore. What I realized is that:

1.Natural rights do not exist (or the nonaggression axiom
2.Property is not objective. It is 100% man-made.

Property is just a means to an end. It is a means to a peaceful, productive society through division of labor. That is it. It is not magic, objective, inherit, or anything like that. Property allows for the division of labor.

We make the rules ourselves: don't harm me, respect my property, and I will do the same for you. Free market economics is about realizing that it is in your own best interest to not steal, kill etc.

This is where, I feel, Molyneux fails. It is not immoral to aggress others, if you can live with the consequences. Ethics are not universal, but they are social rules that we agree on for our own benefit.

I'm not against government because "taxation is theft!" or whatnot. I am simply for economic cooperation because it is beneficial for everyone in the medium-long run. Government is the opposite, and is the biggest cause in lower quality of life for most people in the short run, and everyone after that.

^^^This is not the same thing a rothbardian natural-rights libertarian believes (necessarily). This is a consequentialist/utilitarian argument. Property rights *are* social order, but not because of natural rights. All types of libertarians agree that the state is the problem, but we can have very different reasons for believing so.
11  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 23, 2013, 02:43:29 AM
Points number one to four are conceivable but not cast in stone. (BTW landownership is not passed on, based on the NAP but based on property rights)

Isn't this the logical progression: NAP (morality) -> one owns himself -> one owns the fruits of his labor (property rights)?

By point number five your scenario falls off the tracks. If that scenario were true we would never have come out of feudalism in the first place.

Who says feudalism is over? It was replaced by the partnership between corporatism and government. The only thing that mostly ended is direct slavery (replaced with wage slavery).

It is just a variation on the Marxist argument against free markets - that "eventually the whole world will just be owned by one monopolist". Economic poppycock.

I don't know why you mention Marxism in this thread but I suspect you're unknowingly building a strawman.

Again there is lots of homework to be done in the resource center of this website and others.

The short version being Austrian Economics theory?

But even in the old feudal system it did not evolve into one huge kingdom. That would be impossible because how can one man restrain 5 billion others? There was war amongst kings and conquests and kingdoms merged through marriage- but even so, some kingdoms realized to survive they cannot keep their citizens in serfdom, they have to recognize their liberties. Those kingdoms prospered more than the violent kingdoms. Some kingdoms were too big so they fell apart (Roman Empire, British Empire) Some kingdoms were overthrown by revolution because they treated their citizens poorly- things are forever evolving and better solutions appear.

This is irrelevant. The feudal system was bad in itself.

There is no law that says large landowners will forever expand. Some will want to expand some won't. Some would rather sell their land and go on vacation. Some spoilt brat might gamble away the farm in a card game- the possibilities are endless. Besides the only way they can be so fantastically rich to buy the whole country is by selling a hugely valuable product to millions of willing buyers. If they enslave the buyers, who will buy their products?

Greed, ambition, pride, psychopathy can all contribute.
The banking families amassed huge wealth over generations by running a scam.
If the buyers are enslaved they become property so no more selling is required.

So what if one family owns all the land in north America.... how would they build roads? Generate electricity? farm, build cars? Take the garbage out?

They would have to hire smart people and pay them. Even down to the little guy that makes the coffee in the morning- these landowners will have to pay them- with what? Either pieces of the land or the produce from the land. allowing enterprising individuals to own property and compete with the good guys.

If one owns all the land in NA he can request rent to any inhabitants of NA. As long as critical resources like land and water are owned, who cares you can buy trinkets to amuse yourself after slaving away the day for your landlord?

Besides this obsession about landownership is just a throwback from outdated Marxist economic theory. In the 1800s it was believed that to get rich you needed to own land.
Not true today. Some of the world's richest men started from scratch. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet.
Knowledge and entrepreneurial skill make you rich, but you need to have a valuable product that others want to buy.

Some of the richest men started from scratch and now own the banking cartel with it's financial executive branches like the IMF and the World Bank.

What if someone knocks on my door and shoots me dead when I answer?

Again when it's broken it's broken.

You're absolutely right, I'm just exploring the limitations of the NAP and ways it can be improved.

Also Austrian economic theory says that it is impossible for monopolies to exist without the support of the state.

As far as I know the Austrian economic theory is yet to be proven and the monopoly part is irrelevant to the 1st scenario, unless by that you mean that a small group of people control all the necessary resources like land, water and energy.

On your second nuclear scenario ... that is just the same old gun control theory just with a bigger gun.

I'm not advocating for statist gun control. The problem with bombs is that you can't use them without collateral damage except in isolated areas. By definition they have a blast radius that can contain good and bad people alike.

Sure there are always going to be crazies on earth and unless we jail everybody, some of them can harm other human beings. (my contention is still that it is the ones on psychoactive drugs that commit mass murder not the ones left alone-but anyway) you are FAR more likely to die from a car accident or bee stings than from a madman using anything... least of all an atom bomb.

Psychopaths don't need drugs to kill people.
I'm not making an utilitarian argument so the likeliness of the scenario is not that important.

Besides those kind of crazies have enough access to collect a few bullets and rifles, but where are they going to get the billions of dollars to buy a nuclear bomb? And who would sell it to them, another madman with a death wish?

It takes years of study and significant smarts to build such a sophisticated weapon- most crazies can hardly tie their shoes. And if he is that smart he can sell his services for millions of dollars and buy drugs or go to Disney, he would be less likely to want to work that hard to kill people.

A radioactive stink bomb would do the job just fine and you only need regular explosives and nuclear plant waste for that, both being highly available.

It also costs billions of dollars to store, maintain and service nuclear weapons. In an anarchist society there would be no tax dollars to pay for making and maintaining expensive weapons, so they will just die from old age or they would be dismantled and sold for private use in electricity generation and medical uses and other free market applications.
Sure somebody can steal the nuclear material and hurt people without creating a bomb, but that would be no worse than the damage that can be done with a simple home made fertilizer bomb.

Considering that nuclear plants accidents are orders of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear bombs in terms of fallout, I would disagree.

I read them.  Most anarchists of all types consider the other types to have a form of government.  It is problematic for comparison.  The way you phrase things suggests the use of some type of organization to enforce the will of others before any harm has been done or threat made.  That suggests laws and government.

In the 2nd scenario, if you can detect some radiation coming from one of your neighbors at alarming levels but nothing that could be a danger in itself, what would you do? I assume you would go and speak to the guy since he might be in more danger himself. If he knew about it and said you shouldn't worry, wouldn't you become suspicious and eager for action?

I also think you are putting way too much on the NAP. 

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1780.msg13385.html#msg13385

The way I view thing is that morality is a technology evolved over a very long time-frame, just like fire. It allowed groups of people to be far more efficient withing the group dynamics. It kept relations between individuals closer to cooperation than competition by limiting conflicts. The NAP is a dumbed down version of that, simplified to the extreme and only applying to moral agents, whereas the natural morality limited interactions with the environment as well. With the agricultural revolution higher available energy meant the environment wasn't that important anymore while at the same time division of labor making the focus on group dynamics even more important. It also lead to a new technology: property rights. The rights were required to protect expensive investments in making fertile fields or keeping livestock. If property rights no longer limit conflict but make it ubiquitous shouldn't we backtrack and go on a different path?

I agree with Hanzo that morality is subjective but if we go down the route of utilitarianism we might just as well end up in a technocratic dystopia like The Venus Project.
12  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 22, 2013, 07:24:25 AM
What if you don't discover the bomb in transit through your property or the guy builds it on his own property, and then detonates?

That is a viable problem in every form of government.  It could happen right now.  Unless you are going to strip search every person every time they leave and enter their home, it can happen.  You are making ridiculous claims and stating them in a way that makes it seem like it is not possible under government.  It is a false choice.    

I have a feeling you didn't read my posts. I'm not saying that government solves that. This is not a comparison between government and anarchy, it's one between different forms of anarchy. I'm trying to understand whether the NAP is as good as it looks or the Aggression part in it needs a better definition.
13  General Category / General Discussion / Re: anti-state.com fate on: August 22, 2013, 05:15:20 AM
Thanks!
14  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 22, 2013, 05:13:27 AM
My policy is if it's not my bomb and you bring it on my property without my permission: Get off my lawn.

What if you don't discover the bomb in transit through your property or the guy builds it on his own property, and then detonates? Seems to me there is no way anyone can prevent that unless they are willing to break the NAP and do a search based on witness reports of strange behavior (not threats or assault but doomsday remarks, stuff you don't get from regular people in the area). An example comes to mind: all the so called "Christians" that believe in the Rapture and that Zionism should be supported because Jews are the chosen people and those that help them will be blessed etc. might find it appropriate to nuke some innocent people they view as heathens to make the so called prophecy in the book of Revelations come true and basically summon Jesus back to Earth. Plenty of people believe that stuff...

Quote
I know that some if not all of these points are debatable but where exactly does the NAP allow worried people to stop such a scenario from developing basically into a tyranny of land owners, during a relatively long time span (generations)?
So anarchism might devolve into statism? It's a risk I'm willing to take.

No, it will probably evolve into Neo-feudalism which could be worse in a lot of ways.
15  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 21, 2013, 03:16:13 AM
When it's broken it's broken. There is nothing save the actions of the people in the situation that can stop tyranny from returning once it's gone.

Even when those actions break the NAP? The point of the thread is to understand whether the Aggression part in the NAP is poorly defined.

Having a weapon isn't an implied threat, but pointing it at people is a threat.

How does one point a bomb at people? The only way I see someone carrying a bomb in a crowded space can break the NAP is if a threat to detonate it is made or if the rules of that particular space are broken, e.g. the owner of that space bans bombs and the bomb is discovered.

Can one use a bomb for self-defense only? Can one be justified in keeping a bomb in proximity to neighbors that disagree with the practice if no proof for a peaceful purpose of the bomb can be made?
Pages: [1] 2
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!