[eugenekop]

So as as long as people don't produce a lot of stuff it is okay not to be violent, but when people start to produce wealth you have to become violent, take their property, and put in jail those who refuse? That's a wonderful morality you've got going there.

[Fasces]

What? Can you speak in anything but non sequiturs? I am sorry we aren't saying what you want us to say, but that doesn't mean you can continue to deliver your canned response and expect us to make meaning of it.

[eugenekop]

I don't imagine a welfare state ever emerging unless people were willing to use violence in order to make those who refuse to pay "taxes" to submit to their rule.

Capitalism implies mass production, mechanisation, the factory system, wage labour, division of labour, etc. etc. I do not see the need for such a system in a tiny isolated subsistence economy.

So as as long as people don't produce a lot of stuff it is okay not to be violent, but when people start to produce wealth you have to become violent, take their property, and put in jail those who refuse? That's a wonderful morality you've got going there.

Is it clear now?

[The Clockwork Rat]

What wealth? Why would you even need wealth?

Jack: Here, I think we should set up a judiciary, a bank, some light industry, and build the capitalist mode of production up from scratch!

Sawyer: Get fucked!

*Jack is left alone to build these for himself*

[Fasces]

Let's backtrack.

Describe the island. What resources does it have? Is there a source of fresh water? Are there fifty such sources? Is there a source of lumber or a substitute for shelter? Is this the same as the food resource?

Describe the people. Are all fifty healthy? How many women are there? How many elderly, or infirm? Describe their occupations. Is there a medical specialist? A nurse? Are these all factory workers? Farmers?

[eugenekop]

You all claim that you don't need a welfare state in an island. Your reason for it is that there is no surplus. But let's say after 20 years some people in the island managed to have a significant surplus. Does it not justify the welfare state, does it justify taking the property of those people by force and if they refuse to beat them or to put them in jail?

[Fasces]

What surplus? How is that surplus being used? Is it being withheld? Is there a man with forty coconut trees, more coconuts than he could eat, and six elderly people going hungry because they can't climb trees anymore? Is he refusing to give these people food?

What exactly is he going to do with that surplus? Invest in a promising young start up?

[Figlio di Moros]

That's because a group of fifty people, in a primitive economy, can't be considered a state; the need for welfare is still present. I do't understand how you expect "capitalism" in a scenerio where anyone who fell ill would require comparatively far more draw on the rest of "society" than today...

[eugenekop]

Let's say after a few months or even years a proper way of acquiring ownership of resources was chosen. Now each one of the 50 people own different parts of the island. However since some people either had more luck, or more likely better skills and more entrepreneurship managed to utilize their resources in such way that they have now 10 times more than what they personally need. Now these especially skillful entrepreneurs trade this surplus for other items and gather a significant amount of wealth. They no longer live in huts but in brick houses with a garden and even once a week employ another islander for cleaning services. They have the best access to health care and other services that the co-islanders provide.

Unfortunately a few of the 50 people have been especially unlucky and were very poor in producing things. Several other people had become ill and can't work at all. Those wealthy entrepreneurs give little to charity. In this scenario would you support a violent action against the entrepreneurs forcing them to provide for the poor and the sick?

[Fasces]

What is the proper way of acquiring ownership? Are any goods deemed public (such as a singular water source)?

EDIT: Never mind. Your island is clearly not a feasible geographic entity. Brick houses? A garden? I suppose some ingenious islander developed a sand fueled power plant.

[eugenekop]

Let's say water source is a public domain. Any other thing you deem absolutely necessary is not monopolized by anyone as well.

[Fasces]

If there are people with a surplus of food, and they refuse to give it to the elderly or infirm, I have no qualms with confiscating their property.

You did not answer my question as to how that property was first distributed.

[eugenekop]

I don't have an answer to how property will be initially distributed. However I did assume everyone would have initially about the same value of resources. Naturally after 20 years there will be significant discrepancies in the efficiency of the utilization of those resources. I also assumed that there are no monopolies on basic things such as food, water and shelter. So the natural result I think would be a Laissez fare economy, and generally an Anarcho-Capitalist society. In such society, would you have qualms taking the property of the wealthy, even by force?

[Fasces]

Hardly natural if you can't even fathom of how initial property distribution would occur.

And no. They do not have the right to let others starve. There is nothing that can be done with a coconut surplus that justifies your argument. They cannot invest it. They cannot give more in other ways. It is hoarding, pure and simple.

[eugenekop]

The initial distribution of property is not very important for an-caps. Most of the value is not in raw resources but in what is made from these resources. Some an-caps believe in equal distribution of resources (i.e. georgism), but most believe in the homesteading principle which says that the first person who puts the resource into use owns it.

And no. They do not have the right to let others starve. There is nothing that can be done with a coconut surplus that justifies your argument. They cannot invest it. They cannot give more in other ways. It is hoarding, pure and simple.

Why do you blame specifically people who hoard coconuts for this though? What if a week ago you couldn't even get all the coconuts, but it is because of the ingenious methods developed by these entrepreneurs that it became possible? In that case you cannot blame them for something that was not even available without them. But even if you disregard this, why blame them and not the rest of the population? Those entrepreneurs are not the only people who gather food. Surely there are some fishers, or hunters and such, or people who gather other types of fruits.

Now we both know that people do not hoard resources (maybe unless they themselves fear from future starvation), it is silly. No one does that. Instead people trade resources. So it is extremely unlikely that those entrepreneurs would hoard the coconuts, they would just trade them. So I ask you again, would taking some of the surplus by force by justified for taking care of the sick?

[Fasces]

The initial distribution of property is not very important for an-caps. Most of the value is not in raw resources but in what is made from these resources. Some an-caps believe in equal distribution of resources (i.e. georgism), but most believe in the homesteading principle which says that the first person who puts the resource into use owns it.

Yet government ownership of that land is 'unfair'.

Now we both know that people do not hoard resources, it is silly. No one does that. Instead people put their resources to use by trading them. So it is extremely unlikely that those entrepreneurs would hoard the coconuts, they would just trade them.

For what? Coconuts? Slaves? What can you do with your surplus wealth that is beneficial to the community on an island? Even anarcho-capitalists argue that the net benefit of free trade outweigh its negatives. Are you advocating an ideology in which a powerful, comfortable, and wealthy elite emerge out the snuff, and dominate society? Do you believe in an inheritance tax?

[ingliz]

people start to produce wealth

Anarcho-Capitalism without capitalism?

[yiwahikanak]

This thread would make an awesome comedy skit.

[Figlio di Moros]

Anyone notice how Eugen keeps moving the goalposts?

"What if you landed on an uninhabitable island..."

"We'd die"

"I meant, uninhabited island..."

"I dunno, scavenge for food, build shelter, avoid lazy douches..."

"Would you build a welfare state?"



*several pages beyond*

"Ok, I didn't mean if your plane crashed and you were stranded on an uninhabited island would you form a state, I meant if you were stranded on an Island with 49 other people and after a generation, you were well established, would you create a welfare state?"

[eugenekop]

Yet government ownership of that land is 'unfair'.

First of all I don't subscribe to Georgism. Second of all I assume an agreement can be signed beforehand by the interested members of the group that any new resource found will be owned by the entire group. My problem is exclusively with coercion, not with common ownership.

For what? Coconuts? Slaves? What can you do with your surplus wealth that is beneficial to the community on an island?

Trade for stuff. You can get a better housing in return, all kinds of matters of comfort.

Are you advocating an ideology in which a powerful, comfortable, and wealthy elite emerge out the snuff, and dominate society? Do you believe in an inheritance tax?

I only advocate the non-aggression principle which means that you should not aggress against the body or property of another individual. I don't believe in inheritance tax nor in any other kind of tax. But let's focus on the question. After assuming initial proportionality of distributed resources and lack of monopoly on the most basic resources, would you support a violent action against the wealthy man in order to help the sick?

"Ok, I didn't mean if your plane crashed and you were stranded on an uninhabited island would you form a state, I meant if you were stranded on an Island with 49 other people and after a generation, you were well established, would you create a welfare state?"

Actually that's what I meant from the beginning, I just phrased the question poorly.