Daily Anarchist Forum
August 18, 2019, 12:13:13 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: mission statement  (Read 2656 times)
Shoaly
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile
« on: December 11, 2011, 07:52:48 AM »

Your mission statement is not consistent.

You say, "through peaceful non-cooperation with government".

Then say, "establishing a free market based upon property rights".

How can you have property rights without a definition thereof?  You need a repository of the definition, that is, government.

However, the problem is to keep the government in check and limited.
Logged
bastiat
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2011, 09:15:31 AM »

If your definition of government is any provider of security and judicial rulings then yes. But then your critique would be much stronger by saying it would impossible to get rid of parents and substantially older siblings.
 If as I suspect you define government as a territorial monopoly on the legitimized use of violence that intentionally use violence or the threat thereof against nonaggressors, I would point you to a host of examples including the Brehons of preconquest Ireland, British Common Law, european admiralty and merchant law, and the Somali Xeer. A basic understanding of property rights is part of almost all humans by nature, indeed at least in Washington very young children were more devoted to them than their parents. Now there will be complex cases, which tradition and competing courts will be able to deal with.  Also at least in my experience, property is widely respected even where the state has no realistic grasp.
Logged
Pygar
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2011, 10:05:46 AM »

There are many examples of highly complex concepts whose definitions are determined by peaceful concensus rather than by government edict.  Technical standards and engineering "best practices" are a couple that come to mind because I work with them a lot.

In most cases a technical standard a government claims to "enforce" is merely a case of a government hijacking a standard already developed and accepted by the engineering community and calling it a "law."  Clearly government "oversight" of such matters is at best superfluous.

Property rights work the same way.  In the absence of government meddling, the definition would evolve naturally just as the definition of a 1/4-20 socket head cap screw or whatever has evolved.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2011, 11:02:53 AM »

Relying on the government to define property rights is like relying on a rapist to define sex.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2011, 12:38:00 PM »

However, the problem is to keep the government in check and limited.
You state the problem as an implied solution. But that solution has always failed, and there are reasons that this will always be true... So it isn't particularly valuable.
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
Pages: [1]
  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!