Daily Anarchist Forum
May 24, 2020, 08:55:24 PM *
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  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Left Libertarian?  (Read 15055 times)
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 12:31:54 PM »

Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

I can't speak for him, but maybe he thinks something along the lines of "If I either homestead unused land, or buy previously-used land from someone else, and then register that land with my DRO, and every (or nearly every) other DRO recognizes the validity of my ownership due to a system or reciprocity, then theft of my land is prevented without resorting to state authority."  
Logged

"The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC."  Adam Kokesh
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 12:48:36 PM »

... because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership ...

Are you not essentially suggesting democracy?  

Last I checked, we still like contracts.  If I have a contract saying I own something, and another contract saying they work for me, that doesn't mean ownership transfers to them.  

I would have to essentially hire 'scabs' to go do the work the others are suppose to be doing.

The squatters would be committing trespass.  Their attack on me would be attempted murder.  They would then be open to arbitration, or something more violent if they refuse.  Odds are I could send in a defense agency to make them leave with few/no community repercussions such as ostracism.  


Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2013, 12:52:32 PM »

Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

Molyneux addresses your objections to absentee ownership.  In a society without absentee ownership, one could never leave home, entrepreneurs could not build and maintain roads, factories, and the like, etc.  It would be a primitive shithole of a dystopia, which I'm guessing from your username you'd like.

Appealing to authority is not an argument; especially since I'm not Stephan's biggest fan.  He's ok, but nothing special.  Also, if I was a primitivist such as you are accusing me of, then would I even have a computer?  My moniker relates to the fact that I do grow and raise a large portion of my own food; thereby alleviating a dependency on a highly vulnerable system.  I do not find freedom in being completely, helplessly, hopelessly dependent on others.

I think that if people believe in life, liberty, and property then they should accept the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend their own life, liberty, and property and not be completely dependent others for the preservation, protection, and defense of their own life, liberty, and property.  How can dependence and helplessness equal freedom?  If diesel fuel suddenly goes up to $8/gallon, are you confident that you will still have a job, and even if you do, do you think food will be as readily available as it is now?  This scenario is to indicate dependency on things outside of the individual's control; which is not wise.

Are you advocating a world wherein everyone is completely self-sufficient?



Not necessarily, but people should strive for being as self sufficient as possible.  This doesn't mean that people have to build their own iPads; however, knowing how to wouldn't hurt and would actually help in allowing the best products to rise to the top.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2013, 12:54:42 PM »

Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.

I don't have to force them to do anything.  As I said, if they refuse to go on their own, they are then open to more violent consequences for being attempted murdering trespassers, and there is nothing that says I have to be violent by myself against them.

Personally I expect an ancap society to be much more monitored than the current world is.  Reputation and voluntary contracts (agreements) are important.  If someone becomes a trespassing attempted murder, I expect it would be very difficult for them to survive.  Who would want to do business with such a person?
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2013, 12:57:33 PM »

Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

I can't speak for him, but maybe he thinks something along the lines of "If I either homestead unused land, or buy previously-used land from someone else, and then register that land with my DRO, and every (or nearly every) other DRO recognizes the validity of my ownership due to a system or reciprocity, then theft of my land is prevented without resorting to state authority."  

The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2013, 01:00:49 PM »

The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.

A DRO is a business.  If they stop having voluntary customers, they go away.  If they try to take money by force, they are then criminals and other organizations will be happy to come in and take their place.   

When was the last time you heard of Brinks running off with a truckload of money, or cleaning out a customers home?

They have no incentive to do that. 
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2013, 01:04:52 PM »

Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.

I don't have to force them to do anything.  As I said, if they refuse to go on their own, they are then open to more violent consequences for being attempted murdering trespassers, and there is nothing that says I have to be violent by myself against them.

Personally I expect an ancap society to be much more monitored than the current world is.  Reputation and voluntary contracts (agreements) are important.  If someone becomes a trespassing attempted murder, I expect it would be very difficult for them to survive.  Who would want to do business with such a person?

People deal with murderers everyday.  To ensure that some person who had done you wrong was truly punished either you would have to take action against them or you would have to spend the time and money to try and inform the most amount of people of the transgression.  Either-way, I don't think everything will workout the way most people here think it will.

While you attack someone squatting on property which you claim is your, maybe the neighbors which you've never met because you don't live there, start attacking you and your Defense Agency for attacking the squatters.  It is a matter of perspective, on whether your neighbors know and accept that you are the actual owner or not.  If the neighbors don't recognize you as the owner and you start attacking the squatters, then you may to have to fight the neighbors also.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2013, 01:09:11 PM »

The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.

A DRO is a business.  If they stop having voluntary customers, they go away.  If they try to take money by force, they are then criminals and other organizations will be happy to come in and take their place.   

When was the last time you heard of Brinks running off with a truckload of money, or cleaning out a customers home?

They have no incentive to do that. 

Suppose you buy property -because it is really cheap- where nobody uses a DRO.  If the local people don't believe in the legitimacy of the DRO, then your only option is to force the neighbors to accept the DRO.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2013, 01:22:03 PM »

Suppose you buy property -because it is really cheap- where nobody uses a DRO.  If the local people don't believe in the legitimacy of the DRO, then your only option is to force the neighbors to accept the DRO.

I see no reason for that to be true.  I don't have to accept the legitimacy of Brinks for them to shoot me if I try to steal what they protect or own.  

They are not judge, jury and executioner.  They are simply an extension of your ability to protect your stuff.


People deal with murderers everyday.  To ensure that some person who had done you wrong was truly punished either you would have to take action against them or you would have to spend the time and money to try and inform the most amount of people of the transgression.  Either-way, I don't think everything will workout the way most people here think it will.

They deal with murders every day because in the current society, if someone is out and about, they are considered to have paid their debt.  I have no doubt that there would be some way to track such things, much as there are multiple credit reporting agencies currently. 

If you disagree, okay.  There isn't really a point for us to be arguing potential outcomes for no reason, as we will not agree.

While you attack someone squatting on property which you claim is your, maybe the neighbors which you've never met because you don't live there, start attacking you and your Defense Agency for attacking the squatters.  It is a matter of perspective, on whether your neighbors know and accept that you are the actual owner or not.  If the neighbors don't recognize you as the owner and you start attacking the squatters, then you may to have to fight the neighbors also.

What right or claim would the neighbors have in the fight?  Do you not expect their defense organization to look into it before they go spending money and lives?   War is expensive.  Most things would likely never reach a violent conclusion.  It is bad for business.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 01:29:53 PM by Syock » Logged

SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2013, 02:53:56 PM »

Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

Not at all.  I'm simply asking for a definition of "absentee", because you said you're not in favor of "absentee ownership".  If I own a hunting cabin I only use a few times a year, is that absentee?  What if I buy and own a large tract of land to leave as a wilderness preserve?  I'm not arguing with you at all, at least not yet, just asking you to define your terms.  I haven't "claimed" anything.  Just asked a question.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
victim77
Full Member
***
Posts: 140


Registered Anarchist


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2013, 04:24:27 PM »

Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.
Logged
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2013, 04:50:28 PM »

Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.

I disagree.  I sit typing this in a rented apartment.  I rent partly for financial reasons and partly because I don't want to buy land in California, I don't think it's a good investment.  So I have voluntarily arranged to rent space from an absentee landlord I've never met, we deal with each other through a professional property management company, and everyone is essentially quite happy.  He's running a business, I'm voluntarily patronizing it, where is problem?
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2013, 04:59:20 PM »

Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.

The big difference is you don't voluntarily sign a contract with the government for land ownership.  You trade for partial land rental.  People were on the land before governments started to claim it.  They came in, either by force or asked in by some semi-democratic means, and claimed final ownership of all land, despite previous claims to it.  That is how they figure they are allowed to tax and take land when they want to.  

In a society without a government essentially stealing ownership rights, the ownership of the land would actually mean something.  It would be something people shouldn't be able to just come in and take from you (especially in some democratic manner) without consequence.  
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 05:01:32 PM by Syock » Logged

SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2013, 05:28:27 PM »

@Syock,

Not sure what our disagreement is about, if anything.  If you're arguing theft by force is wrong, I agree completely, whether its done by a national government or by squatters.  If you're arguing all absentee ownership amounts to theft, I've given my example above as to why I disagree.  There is nothing immoral or aggressive about investing your honestly accumulated savings in something like a rental property.

I do think sharecropping-type farming will always be less efficient than farmers owning their land, but that's a self-correcting problem, I think, in the absence of a government.

I would, for instance, love to buy land and sell it to sharecroppers on credit. Pay me a fixed payment, rather than a share of your crop, for a finite period of time, at which point I transfer title to the land.  I make more money than the guy who owns sharecropped land because my farmers work harder, and are demonstrably smarter, and they get a better deal because they're working for themselves.  Eventually, sharecropping dies out due to competition.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2013, 06:47:39 PM »

@Syock,

I am all for absentee ownership.  I think posts might be getting mixed.  
_____________________

Homesteading only makes sense to me when applied to land that has no owner.  I think that only would apply to future man-made land beyond national claims, and stuff in space at this point.  
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 06:50:58 PM by Syock » Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  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!