Daily Anarchist Forum
April 23, 2014, 05:07:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why I am not (quite) an anarchist  (Read 3498 times)
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2012, 09:35:27 AM »

Which imposition?
The progressive consumption tax.

You're right. I did discuss many impositions, the enclosure of land, the mastery of live stock and hereditary title for example. Forcible standards accompany all of these practices, and many details of these standards are controversies in the classically liberal tradition. We could discuss any of them, but an-caps take many of these rules for granted and do not take a progressive consumption tax for granted, so I'd like to discuss the latter, to explore the common assumptions here.

By the time we reach a level of economic organization at which I may own a car consuming gasoline produced from petroleum drawn from the earth and drive my car down a highway, we've established a vast system of forcible rules far too numerous and complex to detail here. The details literally fill volumes in law libraries, and any one of them can be a controversy.

An-caps differ on software patents, but many controversies preceded this one. May a man enclose a parcel of land larger than he can fruitfully farm by his own labor and charge rent to others who would farm the same land? Classical liberals debate this question. Read Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government for example.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 09:38:53 AM by Martin Brock » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2012, 10:26:08 AM »

Which imposition?
May a man enclose a parcel of land larger than he can fruitfully farm by his own labor and charge rent to others who would farm the same land?

My answer to that is "only if he can defend it without aggressing against others in order to procure the defense."
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2012, 03:27:42 PM »

Which imposition?
May a man enclose a parcel of land larger than he can fruitfully farm by his own labor and charge rent to others who would farm the same land?

My answer to that is "only if he can defend it without aggressing against others in order to procure the defense."
My answer is that there is no way to say whether it's "right" or "wrong." However, we can make predictions about whether this would happen or not. Looking at the history of the homestead act, I think it's safe to say that land will be claimed before it can be put to productive use. So yeah, people will fence in the land. But at this early stage of "grabbing," the land is not worth much. It isn't in high demand, so the rent would be low. In fact, the person who has nothing better to do than go and grab dirt cheap land probably isn't skilled enough to use it very well. Someone who knows what they are doing will approach this person, when the time is right, and buy it. Resources will tend to end up where they belong.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2012, 06:10:36 PM »

My answer to that is "only if he can defend it without aggressing against others in order to procure the defense."
If he only needs a gun and a willingness to use it to procure the defense, because others are not able or willing to resist his force with their own, then his force is not "aggressive"? We seem only to return to the semantics of "aggression" here.

I can only reply that Locke disagreed. In terms of enclosing the commons, from the state of nature, Locke called this business model "dishonest".

I don't call it "dishonest" myself. Carving the land into parcels and entitling men to their marginal value, either by sale or by rent, is a useful imposition. It is indisputably a forcible imposition, but it is a useful imposition, because it creates a market in the parcels from which market prices and market organization emerge; however, the utility of this organization does not imply the "rightness" of landlords living luxuriously entirely by the marginal value of lands they hold rather than the marginal value of their own labor. The utility of the latter does not follow logically from the utility of the former. The latter may only be an unintended consequence of the former.

I suppose we agree that statutory impositions almost invariably have unintended consequences.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2012, 08:29:33 PM »

I don't actually believe in rights(or more accurately, what is right is moot)  or property. There are only claims and what an entity can defend.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2012, 10:19:39 PM »

I don't actually believe in rights(or more accurately, what is right is moot) or property. There are only claims and what an entity can defend.
Spoken like a true anarchist.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 10:25:03 PM by Martin Brock » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2012, 10:23:33 PM »

I don't actually believe in rights(or more accurately, what is right is moot)  or property. There are only claims and what an entity can defend.
Spoken like a true anarchist.

Am I wrong?  Wink
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Martin Brock
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2012, 10:25:44 PM »

Am I wrong?  Wink
I don't say you're wrong, but a state is an entity defending its claims, so I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2012, 10:47:55 PM »

Am I wrong?  Wink
I don't say you're wrong, but a state is an entity defending its claims, so I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful.

I'll agree with you there completely. The state claims it owns everything in a given geography, from the land to the bodies of other individuals. Anarchists dispute these claims, or more accurately, stake claims in their own bodies and voluntarily acquired property(goods). Therein lies the battle. Who will win? The state definitely has a lot of resources and little resistance to fight these battles. But their power shrinks every time a new individual claims ownership over their own body and voluntarily acquired goods and subsequently disputes the government's claim through disobedience.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2012, 04:01:47 PM »

I don't actually believe in rights(or more accurately, what is right is moot)  or property. There are only claims and what an entity can defend.
Spoken like a true anarchist.

Am I wrong?  Wink
Wrong is the negation of right, and what is right is moot. To say you are wrong is equally moot.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2012, 02:14:03 PM »

 I don't identify as a full blooded an-cap either. I see myself as being more of a radical minarchist with some an-cap tendencies. One of the reasons why I still support the good doctor.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!