Daily Anarchist Forum
February 29, 2020, 04:46:46 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  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?  (Read 23423 times)
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2013, 10:46:11 AM »

I am an absentee owner of the entire Universe with the exception of Earth and the artificial satellites which humans have put into space.  Would you like to buy part of it?  I have a paper deed proving it, and upon me selling you part of the Universe I will provide you with a piece of paper which states that you own that particular piece of the Universe.  You could be an absentee owner of part of the Universe; I'm sure nobody will  contest the legitimacy or validity of the claim.

If a majority of the general population -even if it is only in your particular area- don't recognize a claim then the claim -no matter how many pieces of paper exist in support of the claim- are invalid; because you would have to force everybody to accept the claim.

Well then, I guess we need a government.  We can all democratically agree to accept or reject your claim.  This website is now obsolete.  Thanks everyone for posting here. 



Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.
Logged
victim77
Full Member
***
Posts: 140


Registered Anarchist


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2013, 11:20:45 AM »

I am a mutualist-a free market "anti capitalist". The problem is that many on the left use a different definition of capitalism from ancaps an libertarians. Capitalism to them is the culmination of the state-corporate corruption and exploitation of the working classes, with union bashing, the inflation tax, regulations that crush competition, and privileges to corporations that create an extremely one sided power structure and control everyones lives (ex. intellectual property).
   
  I've been on this board for two years now, and even though I have crossed to the "dark side" I love reading this board because I think some of the best minds in the movement come here and DISAGREE about things. State Hater calls himself a "newby" to ancaps and I wholeheartedly support his conversion, but I wish he wouldn't be so divisionist. Ancaps have a varied view of many issues, just like anyone else. But just because Ancaps can't agree on everything, and Anarchists can't agree on everything, doesn't mean we should be disowning or disregarding their views (other than ancoms, because we all know they have no idea what they're talking about).

   To actually answer your question though, State Hater, I believe that anarchists of any stripe came to the philosophy by questioning everything that you thought was right. If the government, an institution that is so intertwined with our lives, is illegitimate, then what else do we take for granted in this society? What if the "traditional" property rights are wrong? What if IP is wrong? What if consumerism and materialism is killing us? If advertising poisons our minds? What if our entire way of life is illegitimate? If you asked everyone on this board, you'd get a different answer every time. And this is because there is nobody telling us what to think. Sure, people will try to influence us, like Stefan, Adam Kokesh, Kevin Carson, Lew Rockwell, David Freidman, SEK3, Rothbard, Spooner, Tucker, Kropotkin, Mises, Marx, Hayek, Keynes, and thousands more, but
the point is that nobody is going to have the same opinion, even in a small circle like this.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2013, 01:25:56 PM »

Mutualists have some wierd ideas but at least they aren't insane like the AnComs over on libcom....
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2013, 02:57:24 PM »

Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.

General acceptance of theft doesn't make it right. 

Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2013, 04:32:16 PM »

Also, a Jury is representative of the general population; do you support Jury nullification?  Jury nullification is the people rejecting the claim of the government -which is itself representative of the general population.  Have you ever seen a highway were nearly everybody is speeding, and nobody gets pulled-over; but when only one person is speeding in excess of the rate-of-speed of the general travelers, then that one person is pulled-over.  These are both examples of the public's ability to reject any claim -even by the government which the people created to represent them.  Have you ever heard of adverse possession, aka 'squatter's rights?'  These common laws change depending on the area or local populations acceptance of the laws.

Claims and contracts are nothing more than an agreement of the general population to accept the claim or contract as valid, such that the first party of the contract has been granted the legitimacy to use force in upholding the contract with the violating party of the contract.  Without the acceptance of the general population then any violent act to uphold a contract is just an act of violence.

General acceptance of theft doesn't make it right. 



So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2013, 04:43:06 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:51:08 PM by Syock » Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2013, 05:43:43 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2013, 05:52:01 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.
Logged
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2013, 05:55:58 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2013, 06:45:45 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2013, 08:44:51 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.

Is it?  Proof that you haven't been reading my posts after all. 
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2013, 08:55:25 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  


Answer how a piece of land which never had an owner can be owned, since there isn't a record of ownership to transfer?  This is where you fail.

Is it?  Proof that you haven't been reading my posts after all. 

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

Obviously the first claim of unowned property must be recognized; and a claim doesn't have to be a piece of paper, for who has legitimacy to write such a paper for an unowned property.  The paper is written on behalf of the first owner, as title of ownership.  If a property is unowned then there cannot be a title of ownership; can there be?

I will say it again.  If you believe in property rights and you believe in the ability of absentee ownership, then if you want to be ideological consistent, you must recognize my ownership of the rest of the Universe; otherwise your ideas of ownership are just things you personally like haphazardly put together without any real consistency.
Logged
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2013, 09:05:57 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

So I've asked before, and never got an answer.  Where in your philosophy does my cabin fit?  I cannot live there full time, because I must earn a living in the city.  I spend weekends and vacations improving the place a step at a time, first installing well and septic, then spending six months of weekends building a house, then spending a two week vacation installing solar panels and a perimeter fence...  My plan is to eventually retire onto the property, but at present I'm only occupying it about 10% of the time.  You think someone has a right to move into it while I'm at work?  Am I an "absentee owner"?  In all your posts I have seen, you have yet to answer the basic question.  It is a simple and fundamental question you keep ignoring or avoiding.  How long must someone be gone before someone else can claim their shit?  Can I leave for a couple of hours to go grocery shopping?  For a full day to work?  Can I leave on vacation for two weeks?  How long must I be gone before its ok for someone to steal my house?
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2013, 09:27:14 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?
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 #29 on: September 15, 2013, 10:01:09 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason. 

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously. 

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  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!