[Zyx]

The point of this thread is that Libertarians are working toward the same ideal as Anarchists.

Fair enough. One should not bring sense to a nonsense party. Got it.

[smashthestate]

Aggression may be used, but I would not consider it the initiation of aggression. While not obvious and explicit, I would consider withholding the property of another against the owner's consent as definitely being a use of aggression.

Then we have a legitimate role for the state, in this case...the enforcement of contract. Unless you think the involved parties themselves can be relied upon to fairly settle. Could a bank use physical violence against customer in order to obtain the collateral on a reneged loan?

[Suska]

Fair enough. One should not bring sense to a nonsense party. Got it.

It's a fair point that there are different ideas about how to achieve a non-coercive society, it's a fair point that property has to be a part of the calculation, but it's not the point of the thread. If we can all agree that a voluntary non-coercive society is what we want we'll have to talk about a lot of things, not just property but everything from traffic laws to healthcare and on that count we can be as divided as always.

But when Libertarians complain that they aren't anarchists - it would be as though a neo-socialist movement arose which rejected cooperation. Libertarianism is anarchist, Libertarians simply don't know their history or the ideals of Libertarianism. It should really be called something like Constitutional-Republicanism or Market-Competitivism or Paulist-Minarchism or hell, a State's Rights movement.

[copaceticmind]

Then we have a legitimate role for the state, in this case...the enforcement of contract. Unless you think the involved parties themselves can be relied upon to fairly settle. Could a bank use physical violence against customer in order to obtain the collateral on a reneged loan?

There are stateless solutions to these problems. Personally, I would never sign a contract which allowed the other party to determine whether or not a breach has occurred and enforce the penalties to the extent they determine necessary. Since they wouldn't want me to have that same power, it would be assigned to a third-party we both considered fair and reliable.

My only question concerning these situations is the morality of my initiation of force against my future self through a third-party should I change my mind. For example, I sign a contract with Bob saying, "I'll give you this apple in ten days. If I don't then you (or a designated third-party) can take $20 by threat of force." All is fine and dandy if I don't uphold my end of the bargain and give you the money. But what happens otherwise?

[DubiousDan]

Well, we can imagine a simple scenario. You are in a house and I claim that it is my house. How do we non-violently settle the dispute? If there are no papers between us, or worse we have competing documents, upon what basis do we decide whose house it is?

Here we go again. There are two classes of property. One class is defined by the state. The other is defined by possession. Without the state, possession becomes the criteria, oh, yes, and the means to retain possession.
By they way, are you laboring under the assumption that Anarchism is non-violet?

[Zyx]

Without the state, possession becomes the criteria, oh, yes, and the means to retain possession.

How is the initial possession justified?

Suppose that I come across an iron mine. Does it belong to someone? To whom?

By they way, are you laboring under the assumption that Anarchism is non-violet?

This was the OP's statement and the statement of Suska. If Anarchy is violence than what promotes it above stateship?

[DubiousDan]

How is the initial possession justified?

Suppose that I come across an iron mine. Does it belong to someone? To whom?

Justified, to whom?

Without the state, that’s up to you and whoever else wants it. Usually, finders keepers, but some people don’t follow that rule. Remember, in Anarchism, nobody has to follow any rules. In Hunter Gatherer social orders folks sort of work these things out. Of course, sometimes somebody gets killed.

Oh, and the finders keepers bit means that you keep it. If you leave it, well then it’s no longer yours.

This was the OP's statement and the statement of Suska. If Anarchy is violence than what promotes it above stateship?

I read the OP’s statement and I didn’t get the same meaning. Remember I’m an Anarchist. Anarchism isn’t violence, but it isn’t non-violent either.

I made a post a while back, don’t ask me to cite it, I don’t have time to look it up, but my post said pretty much the same as the OP’s post.

However, I will state it a bit differently and it may be a bit clearer. That’s because my perspective is a bit different from European derived Anarchisms. European Anarchisms are a subset of my Anarchism. Mine includes the Tao Teh Ching, which most folks don’t realize is Anarchistic.

I start with Civilization. Civilization began as slavery and just refined itself a bit, but basically it’s still slavery, only they don’t call it that. Civilization began with agriculture and part of agriculture is animal husbandry. Dogs and slaves probably existed before civilization but civilization organized it big time. What civilization did is domesticate man. The hunter gatherer Humans before civilization were feral men and probably some of the hunter gatherers still around are feral men.
If you have ever been around a farm you sort of get the picture. Domesticated animals want to be domesticated. If they get away, they usually come back. Feral animals don’t want to be domesticated and will struggle to be free.
Today the people in the few remaining hunter gatherer groups have to struggle to be feral. Some succumb to the pressures of Civilization, but by and large feral men want to free. On the other hand, domesticated men by and large want no part of living with feral men. Life is a bit chancy as a feral man for a domesticated man. It’s sort of like the fable of the dog and the wolf. When each tried the other’s life style, they ended up preferring their original style.
Anyway to cut a book into a post, over the millennia domesticated men developed rationales for domestication. One of them was the Myth of Legitimacy. The state was legitimate, what it did was right. Religion usually supplied the rationale in the beginning. Today we have economic and social theory. Same BS.
What Anarchism does, and mostly without my perspective, is reject the Myth of Legitimacy. Part of the Myth of Legitimacy is the right of the state to use force. The policeman guns down the citizen that usually ends up being OK. A citizen guns down a policeman, that’s rarely OK. Maybe if you have lots and lots of money, but even then, it’s a bit iffy. You are a screwing with the States fundamental right to kill. The warriors kill, the slave gets killed. That’s the way the game was set up in the beginning. They frowned on the slaves killing Elites and their Warriors.

However, the Myth of Legitimacy is a fundamental part of the conditioning of Domesticate Man and he will struggle to keep it. That’s one of the reasons for elementary school. You have to learn the Myth of Legitimacy at an early age. No, they don’t call it that. They call it being a good citizen. A good citizen believes in the Myth of Legitimacy and the right of the state to set the rules. In Domesticated Man, it probably comes with mother’s milk.
However, as I said, Anarchism rejects the legitimacy of the state to set the rules on the application of force or any other thing for that matter. It doesn’t say that force is bad, it just doesn’t accept that the state has a right to use it. The state can use it, it will use it, but it doesn’t have any more right to use it than a feral man has.
The Anarchist doesn’t need an Anarchism to be an Anarchist. He can exist in the state. However, he’s not really a member. He’s just living there. Sort of like cats. When I ride my bicycle in traffic, I’m really in an Anarchism, because usually the police ignore what bicycles do or what is done to them, unless a car driver happens to kill a bicyclist, then the Policeman has to figure out what the bicyclist was doing wrong. However, I try to make it as easy for the car driver as I can. I try not to obstruct him or hold him up, not because of law, but because, one, I don’t want to get killed, and two, because it is the nature of feral man not to be a problem. There’s a good reason for that, in the real old days, being a problem could get you killed.
I don’t recognize the validity of society’s laws, but I recognize their existence. Most people don’t really follow the law in America, they follow some shorthand version of it. If I expected people to obey the law on my bicycle, now tricycle, I would have been dead years ago.
However, most people accept the legitimacy of law even when they are violating it. I don’t. I just obey it because it’s usually convenient, and when it’s not, just like most Americans, I don’t. The only difference is, I don’t feel that I’m doing anything wrong. Just like my fellow Americans, I watch out for the police when I’m violating the law, after all, he has a gun and a club, and besides that, he has a job to do, and I sure wouldn’t want to kill a nice chap over running a stop sign. Much better to pay the ticket.
So like the chap was trying to tell you in the OP, you can be an Anarchist without being in an Anarchism. You just have to behave like a Domesticated Man most of the time, that’s all.

Oh, the chap in the OP wasn’t saying that Anarchism and Libertarianism were the same, he was illustrating a difference. I’m not sure that Secret Squirrel figured that out.

[Melodramatic]

Justified, to whom?

Without the state, that’s up to you and whoever else wants it. Usually, finders keepers, but some people don’t follow that rule. Remember, in Anarchism, nobody has to follow any rules. In Hunter Gatherer social orders folks sort of work these things out. Of course, sometimes somebody gets killed.

Oh, and the finders keepers bit means that you keep it. If you leave it, well then it’s no longer yours.

I should note that this is simply a different way of saying the same thing anarchists such as myself say... Finders keepers, with real keepers, and society tends to punish those who do not respect that...

Anarchism isn’t violence, but it isn’t non-violent either.

Most chances are they mean aggression, not violence.

Anyway, I agree with much of your post, although I am not yet sure of your solution...

[Zyx]

Oh, and the finders keepers bit means that you keep it. If you leave it, well then it’s no longer yours.

What's the value of a system where a person can leave a house full and return to it empty?

How is Anarchism a step-up from state-ship?

Your anarchism does not seem like an improvement.

[DubiousDan]

What's the value of a system where a person can leave a house full and return to it empty?

You can do that in the United States. My son just got hit by burglars. They didn’t take everything, but there have been cases where everything has been taken. So what’s the value of this system?

How is Anarchism a step-up from state-ship?

Again you seem to be missing the point of the OP which is that you can be an Anarchist without an Anarchism.
The only Anarchisms that I actually accept as having existed are hunter gatherer social orders. Most folks don’t want to count those. So if you don’t, there never has been an Anarchism.
The difference is not in the state but in the person. Are you domesticated or feral? Do you believe in the right of the state to use violence, or don’t you? Do you believe in the Myth of Legitimacy or not?

Your anarchism does not seem like an improvement.

Whose Anarchism? Neither the OP nor myself described an Anarchism.

[Zyx]

So what’s the value of this system?

On occasion, the burglars are caught with minimal effort on the victim's side.

Again you seem to be missing the point of the OP which is that you can be an Anarchist without an Anarchism.

I see, but I do not see the use of subscribing to this. I would prefer a benevolent state over an apolitical and passive mentality.

[DubiousDan]

occasion, the burglars are caught with minimal effort on the victim's side.

Yes, it would be interesting to note the number of people boarding an airliner with a similar known success ratio.

I see, but I do not see the use of subscribing to this. I would prefer a benevolent state over an apolitical and passive mentality.

Utopian fantasies are desirable because they are utopian.

[Zyx]

Yes, it would be interesting to note the number of people boarding an airliner with a similar known success ratio.

Is that the case everywhere?

I will admit that I have not recently investigated the statistics surrounding success rates, have you?

Utopian fantasies are desirable because they are utopian.

Point taken, although my comment more relates with effective and ineffective political action. Sometimes simply disobeying laws will get one imprisoned. It is better to rally for just laws, then to suffer unjust ones. As the calculus, it is better to obey a good law, then disobey a bad law. Humans are empowered to action. Anarchism seems an opiate.

[DubiousDan]

Is that the case everywhere?

I will admit that I have not recently investigated the statistics surrounding success rates, have you?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... tml#figure

See for yourself. However this is for cases cleared by arrest and not by conviction, nor is there any mention of returned property.
Of course, in many cases, people don’t even bother to report burglaries because it’s pointless. I suspect that the figure given above is a bit specious. Police departments like to look good. They often discourage reporting of minor crimes. I state that from personal experience.
No, it’s not the same everywhere, your chances are probably a lot better in Switzerland.

Still your chances are one in eight in the USA by the official statistics. Still want to get on that plane?

I had a seat cushion stolen from my open top sports car once. It was a very bad neighborhood that happened to have a good steak house with reasonable prices because of the neighborhood. The cushion cost fifty dollars. The culprit was apprehended because the area was saturated with vice cops. He was a white college kid from a rich family. He just happened to have a same make and model car and someone stole his cushion. He was just driving by and spotted my car.
I got my seat back on the spot. However, I had to go down and testify on his trial. For the fifty dollar cushion, I lost eighty dollars in pay. I was treated worse than the defendant by the court. I spent most of the time sitting in the hall. When I first entered they mistook me for the defendant. He was a clean cut college kid, I was a shabby looking factory worker. City officials went down and testified to his impeccable character. His defense was that he was drunk. Considering the speed with which he was running, I doubt that. However he ran right into the arms of a vice cop.
See the system works, I got my fifty dollar cushion back and it only cost me eighty dollars. If the police hadn’t caught the kid I would have saved thirty dollars. I was amazed, the kid had a great lawyer, but they convicted him. He was studying to be a lawyer, the conviction went on his record. He deserved it. He damn sure could have afforded to buy the cushion easier than I. One of the character witnesses went crying to me in the Hall about his wonderful parents. I don’t think he was supposed to. However I told him I would have had more sympathy for some poor local kid that needed the money.

Point taken, although my comment more relates with effective and ineffective political action. Sometimes simply disobeying laws will get one imprisoned. It is better to rally for just laws, then to suffer unjust ones. As the calculus, it is better to obey a good law, then disobey a bad law. Humans are empowered to action. Anarchism seems an opiate.

The goal of law is injustice. Go back and reread my post. I probably obey the law better than most people. That’s pragmatism, not respect for the law. Also my personal code of ethics, which has nothing to do with law, probably makes me a more trustworthy neighbor than most. How many neighbors go to their neighbor’s aid with a handgun when their house is invaded? I’ve done that. That’s risky, police shoot armed men and ask questions later.

How many Anarchists to you think there are in prison?

Anarchism seems like an opiate to you? So far, I really haven’t received any evidence that you know what Anarchism is.

[SecretSquirrel]

well, most people think that anarchism is just code for bomb-throwing revolutionary terrorism out of 19th century propaganda.

[Eran]

When it comes to the definition of property, and the role of the state, people seem to confuse to aspects (neither one of which requires the state, btw).

The two aspects I have in mind are legal and evidentiary.

The legal aspect goes to the question of who is entitled to own which property. Broadly, the community needs to adopt a common standard. Libertarians offer one such standard (self-ownership plus homesteading), but imo, all you need to allow peaceful anarchist (voluntarist) society is a combination of strict self-ownership plus the possibility of private property.

Societal standards precede and determine political and formal-legal structures (with some obvious cross-influence). Thus societies that believe in private property will tend to have legal structures that respect it, whether through a state or without it.

The second aspect of ownership is evidentiary - how do you prove ownership. Here the state places a role today which could easily be privatized. Private title-registration companies will register title claims over property. Depending on circumstances, such claims could be accompanied by proof - from a sales contract to witness testimony to pictures, maps and diagrams supporting the claim.

When (private) courts are asked to resolve disputes, the records of reputable title-registration companies will serve as prima-facie evidence.

What's the value of a system where a person can leave a house full and return to it empty?

How is Anarchism a step-up from state-ship?

Your anarchism does not seem like an improvement.

Anarchism will be an improvement in the same way that private competitive services always offer improvement over uncompetitive monopolies. Most thinkers anticipate prevalent crime-insurance which will immediately compensate subscriber-victims on all damage caused by violent crime. In exchange, the insurance company will obtain the rights to recover damages from the criminal.

This arrangement ensures properly-aligned incentives. Since recovery rate is not perfect, insurance companies will find it in their interest to promote prudence and caution, including, as appropriate, installation of passive security measures, security patrols, gated communities, etc. However, since they are liable for the damage, insurance companies are also incentivised to prosecute criminals, adding a deterrence against future crime.

Contrast that with the current state of affairs, in which police officers have absolutely no motivation to deter or catch petty criminals.

An additional improvement stems from the observation that in a free society, streets are not public. They are privately-owned. Again, depending on circumstances, known criminals (or even any person without a valid crime insurance) could be legitimately excluded from your neighbourhood.

I don’t recognize the validity of society’s laws, but I recognize their existence.

I would make a distinction between "Society's laws", broadly understood, and "State legislation". Replacing the former with the latter in your statement above, and we are in complete agreement.

Law is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions

I accept that some system of rules and guidelines are a necessary part of living in society. Even hunter-gatherer societies had "laws" in this broad sense. I reject the legitimacy of the State as the determinant of law. Instead, I believe in a combination of natural law (rules acknowledging the basics of civilised living, such as refraining from using violence to resolve conflicts) and societal conventions (e.g. as captured by common law tradition).

On the question of fraud, I think the line between fraud and theft is blurred. Neither involves violence against body, but both involve illegitimate taking of property. Compare the following two scenarios:
1. You find the door to my house open. You help yourself in, and take $1,000 sitting on the table
2. You agree to sell me your car for $1,000. I hand you the money, and you speed way, clutching it in your hand
3. You agree to sell me your car for $1,000. I hand you the money, only to find that you switched the car I tested with one made of card-board.

I think all three cases are morally equivalent - in each of them you are now holding $1,000 that belong to me. I am justified in using proportionate force to recover the money.

[ThomasNewton]

Zyx, I hope you catch this message because I wanted you to know that I continue to be impressed with your well constructed arguments.

As for my own points, first of all the article in the original post is an example of begging the question,poisoning the well and the division fallacy. The argument against the state assumes aggression and concludes the states is aggressive, hence assuming its conclusion (begging the question). Furthermore it claims that since a part of the state is aggressive, the entire thing is unjustified (division fallacy). Finally its argument again aggression being justifiable is that criminals think that way (which is poisoning the well). None of these are a correct logical argument for the conclusion the article is trying to support.

Another aspect of the overall argument of anarchy is a prime example (again) of begging the question. The argument is that without the state people will act peacefully because they'll obey (and I'll use Eran's words for this) "natural law" or "societal conventions" which say they will be peaceful. This is assuming your conclusion because your argument is "people will be peaceful because they will be peaceful."

Also involved in this discussion seems to be an indefinite definition for "aggression." This is an example of the True Scotsman fallacy because without a univocal definition the term becomes meaningless, hence the state is being accused of nothing.

I apologize for butting in on the board if I'm not suppose too, I'm still very new here and I'm trying to clear out the arrows on the main forum.

[Zyx]

Zyx, I hope you catch this message because I wanted you to know that I continue to be impressed with your well constructed arguments.

I thought that you were being sarcastic, so I thank you that you are not.

To be very honest with you, in some respects I am sort of an anarchist. We all are. However, this discussion is confusing because each of our approaches to anarchy differs.

DubiousDan outlines how the state that we live under defends injustices. My only qualm with him is that he does not realize that the fundamental injustice is 'private property.' However otherwise, as far as his presentation is concerned, we are in accordance.

Eran offers a well-crafted solution to statelessness yet he seems to prop up a 'voluntary' state in its place; almost as though nothing changes beside that there's nothing interfering with capitalism. Sort of a libertarian dream. I do not know why he offers this solution. It's really same-old, same-old when one looks at its consequences: the United States is sort of a 'gated community' already.

On your contention, ThomasNewton, I can not completely agree. Because it is my belief that people are fundamentally good. So in a sense I can agree with DubiousDan and say that the state goes against our inherent goodness and thereby our inherent interests. Of course, I believe that a state can solve this but that's because I believe that there is a definition for 'goodness' whereas no one else does.

So to say 'people will be peaceful because they will be peaceful' is reasonable in the respect that people are fundamentally good and only because we empower evil are people mislead to be evil. So whereas I believe that a state should rule, I also acknowledge the old American precept on how if men were angels then we would not need governance. I think that we can make men angelic and only then would anarchy work; otherwise the angel's government is to what I cast my support.

But thank you for your compliments and I acknowledge your pointing out the fallacies; however there are grains of truth in the most barren lies and that's kind of where all of our arguments come. So besides pointing out fallacies, what do you think of anarchism?

[grassroots1]

I waited with bated breath to see if this thread was written by a libertarian or a genuine anarchist. Needless to say I was disappointed.

[ThomasNewton]

So to say 'people will be peaceful because they will be peaceful' is reasonable in the respect that people are fundamentally good and only because we empower evil are people mislead to be evil. So whereas I believe that a state should rule, I also acknowledge the old American precept on how if men were angels then we would not need governance. I think that we can make men angelic and only then would anarchy work; otherwise the angel's government is to what I cast my support.

I believe Rousseau was right as well, and strongly agree with your point that if men were infallible then state would be unnecessary. The problem is, well, people are fallible. And they are fallible even in the absence of any kind of state (assuming that some kind of morality exists and relativism is not correct).

Therefore, anarchy is successful only in the hypothetical situation in which people are infallible.

The idea that the state causes some injustice is irrefutable, so you are correct on that point. However arguing for the abolishing of state based on that principle is the division fallacy. Just because the state can support immoral action is not logical proof for the abolishing of the state (by the same token, just because humans perform immoral acts does not necessarily mean the human race should be exterminated).