Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Brother of Karl wrote:And why does the first person to stumble onto a piece of property deserve to become its soverign dictator (aka. owner)?
BoK wrote:Why should I respect your stake in a corporation which you have never worked for, don't even fully understand, and bought from a mutual fund?
BoK wrote:If there was no government enforcing contracts and private property, and I had no property of my own, I see no logical reason why I should not just claim it as my own personal property.
Eran wrote:The reason you should respect property rights (when defined as above) is that as a descent person, you don't believe in using force against other (peaceful) people or their ongoing projects.
Eran wrote:You also realise that the stability and prosperity of society depends on such respect.
Eran wrote:Finally, effective, if decentralised institutions will make sure you do, or pay for your aggression.
Dagoth Ur wrote:Centralized, motivated, armies cannot be beaten by voluntary home-owner associations.
Brother of Karl wrote:And why does the first person to stumble onto a piece of property deserve to become its soverign dictator (aka. owner)? What if joe shmofinds a piece of land that has rare earth minerals under it and doesn't want to let anyone mine them? A reasonable society would probably force him to get out of the way or be mowed down to get at the minerals. Even a socierty with no government would be happy to trample on some loser's property rights if it benefits the bottom line.
The Immortal Goon wrote:No, see everyone will agree that this is mean, so long as we build a society where everyone is encouraged to get as much money and as many resources as possible.
How doesn't this make sense?
lucky wrote:I am a decent person, BoK is probably a decent person (by common societal standards of what we call decency), and we both believe in using this "force" against peaceful people to coerce them into following certain policies. You want to redefine "decent" to suit your ideological agenda and use it for an argument by equivocation.
False. I don't, BoK doesn't. Even if we did, we're not aiming for the abstract prosperity of society in general, but we are very biased towards the prosperity of ourselves and our friends, just like everybody else.
Put simply, I understand why I should respect people's personal property, that is- the land they personally live on, their shelter, their tools, etc.
lucky wrote:Empirically false. Decentralized fighters lose against united armies. That's why the world is dominated by the US Army with a national command hierarchy rather than unorganized angry dudes running around.
Wishful thinking over and over again. Useless for actually doing any politics.
Eran wrote:Most descent people (not libertarians)., and under most circumstances, do not believe people have the right to initiate force against others. Our society has a huge blind spot when it comes to governments. But in everyday life, we usually frown upon such aggression.
Eran wrote:But then we shouldn't stop at property rights. Why not rape and assault anybody you fancy?
Eran wrote:If what you want is physical possessions produced by others, the only way to get them in a reasonable society is by producing something that those others want, and exchanging what you want for what you produced.
The Immortal Goon wrote:But we were talking about land, which nobody produced. So, again, the libertarian covers his absurd fantasy land by completely ignoring the issue and talking about something else.
Eran wrote:If I find an uninhabited corner of the world, and peacefully start making a living there, I have engaged in a peaceful project...
A resource becomes my property in the relevant sense if (and only if) it has been incorporated into my peaceful projects in such a way that reasonably requires exclusive access and control. Not because of some government decree. Then (and only then) would libertarians protect that property right.
Eran wrote:In an ancap society, property rights are never arbitrary. They can always be traced back to either:
1. A homesteading event, i.e. an incorporation of previously-unused natural resources into a peaceful project in a manner that reasonably requires exclusive access and control
2. A voluntary transfer (whether one-sided, i.e. gift, or as part of a trade) of title from one legitimate owner to another.
Voluntarism wrote:The initial valid claim is a result of you mixing your labour with it. The ongoing claim to property is similar albeit with a time dimension regarding when a reasonable person can expect that an old claim has become abandoned. The legal definition of such a time dimension can of course differ between cultures (and assets).
The implication is that it is not enough for a new explorer to simply claim that an entire region and all of its resources are their's now and forever by declaration, but in natural fact they can only claim the parts that they settle and actively work. As long as no other person appears in the region, then the explorer can claim whatever they want but it is so much empty verbiage and fantasy, with no foundation in natural fact. Should a newcomer appear on the scene, and begin to transform unused land elsewhere in the region, then any enforcement of the explorer's invalid claim would constitute criminal aggression against the newcomer and invasion of the latter's property rights.
I refer people again to the Robert LeFevre book I referenced about a week ago (and repeat the warning about it's file size being ~7.5Mb).
lucky wrote:most people do not believe in initiating force under most circumstances. They believe there is time and place for it. It's not a "blind spot". They deliberately evaluate desirability of certain actions depending on context, rather than doing over-broad simplistic generalisations.
Eran wrote:Donald Trump, for example, benefited greatly and over many years from a cozy relationship with various government bodies who granted him very valuable favours by way of planning permissions, eminent domain confiscations, etc.
Eran wrote:In your second point, you ask "If Trump owned land where he was going to build a mansion later,...". How did Trump come to own the land? In today's society, the most likely answer is that he bought it at the end of a chain of transfers that started with an arbitrary grant of land title by the US government (or perhaps one of the Colonial governments). Such grants have never been just, and libertarians don't expect them to be respected.
Eran wrote: his is particularly true if, as in your scenario, other people have (legitimately, even if technically illegally) started homesteading the land themselves. The land then should be theirs, not Trump's.
Eran wrote:If only. Most people do not consider context except for one narrow question, namely whether the initiation of force is done by a Government agent or not.
The Immortal Goon wrote:So it would initially start as a complete free-for-all? Who would enforce two people coming to the same bit of land at the same time? What would happen if two people claimed different property that overlapped? What if you claimed property with a river and your man upstream built a dam?
So in twenty years into an-cap, it would still be impossible to hold land that you later hoped to build upon, say, while you were getting supplies someone could come over and take it from you? What level of homesteading matters? If children built a fort, does that make the land their own? If you chopped down a tree, do you own an acre? Five acres? Ten? What if two people were using the land for wood for their homes and someone else moved in and started to build a house? What if that was land someone nearby was using to graze upon but didn't technically modify himself? If someone mines in Alaska in the summer and rests elsewhere in the winter, is the land abandoned the day after he leaves? The week? The month? These are all disputes that happen every single day as it currently stands and will sometimes turn to violence even with a monopoly of violence only being sanctioned by the state. How would an-cap deal with these property disputes? Execution for whomever draws slowest?
Miners worked at a claim only long enough to determine its potential. If a claim was deemed as low-value—as most were—miners would abandon the site in search for a better one. In the case where a claim was abandoned or not worked upon, other miners would "claim-jump" the land. "Claim-jumping" meant that a miner began work on a previously claimed site. Disputes were sometimes handled personally and violently, and were sometimes addressed by groups of prospectors acting as arbitrators.
Finally, I have seen nothing to address the issue of people that choose to reject the premise of owning property in the first place. Traditionally un-regulated capitalism processes their women and children through rape and converts the entire population into piles of bodies. Is this still the punishment for refusing to acknowledge the premise of private property in an-cap, or is there another solution that will be tried?
lucky wrote:It doesn't matter who collects the taxes. Anybody can easily become a government agent. Government agents change from year to year. If IRS was a private contractor, it would make no difference whatsoever, nobody would particularly care.
The rule of law.
For example, if a government agent came over to a random person in an evening at a bus stop and said "give me your money and your cell phone or I will stab you with this knife", people would be just as upset as if he was not a government agent. Or probably, even more upset.
In your ridiculous cartoonish picture of the world they would presumably say "Is this guy a government agent? Yep cool, no problem, that's his job".
Here's Mark Blyth on the macro'n'cheese podcast, […]
This could be a platform for our conquest of Green[…]
October 15, Tuesday A band of Jeff Thompson’s r[…]
Ted Cruz is a Canadian and might be a future presi[…]