[iriswaters]

The difference is that the rule of law created by the owner is dissolved when ownership is dissolved. Under the current system the state's laws apply no matter the owner of the property. In the case of a "privatized state" any contracts entered into are completely voluntary. Anyone who doesn't want to live on someone else's land under someone else's rules can buy their own property. It's all about the freedom of association.

Well, in a coalition of states, the contract is fairly voluntary as well. If one doesn't like the rules, one may simply leave. Unless, of course, all other nations have similar policies(have a State).

Likewise, the renters in question have 'voluntarily' enter the rent contract only for a certain definition of 'voluntary'. If all the housing near to where the jobs are are owned by land-lords, and they all use the relatively procedure of hiring a police force to enforce their own idea of law and maintain their property rights, and passing the costs along to their tenants, then I see no real difference between each individual housing group and a 'State', and a functionally monarchic one at that. The only notable difference being in size, and that only maintaining itself until they grow. As many will.

[iriswaters]

I will ignore your tone, but suggest that the conversation would be much more pleasant if we both gave each other the benefit of the doubt - assume misunderstanding rather than profound stupidity on the other side.

This is one of the most wonderful things I have ever seen in an online debate.

I would like to offer another category of property. Call it "contract-based". Say I own and possess a house. No states. I want to rent the house out to you. You want to rent it from me. We agree on terms, and sign a contract. The contract allows you to possess the house, but only on a conditional basis. Contract terms make it clear that I am still the owner. For example, you are committed to evacuate the house at the end of the rental period, and return it to me.

Who enforces the contract, if I decide to renege? More, who enforces the contracts of those who cannot afford to pay for police protection?

I argue that contract-based property can be both defined and enforced without a state. Lex Mercatoria provides one example of an effective legal system in which contract-based property was enforced without necessary reference to state courts.

No, but they resorted to force. Force that they had a near monopoly on. I do not see how a few private groups sharing a monopoly on the use of force is morally superior to a State holding the monopoly.

Finally, I want to point out that every legal system is based on unwritten societal conventions. No exception. For example, what gives the British Parliament its legal authority? It couldn't be any Act of Parliament (for without the legal authority, the act itself would be without authority). The same reasoning applies to the Constitution of the US.

These bodies have authority because the society gives them authority, yes. Other bodies that people would agree have a monopoly on the use of force would also be States.

Since the legal institutions of every society are fundamentally based on unwritten conventions, one can easily imagine a society in which such unwritten conventions do not place all legal authority with a single body, but rather that society recognizes a number of competing (commercially) and cooperating (procedurally) bodies to adjudicate disputes. Since those bodies would have societally-recognized authority, organization yielding physical force will obey their authority (in the same way that the armed forces of a modern state obey its civilian authority despite yielding the actual physical force).

I already asked, but this is a good time to reiterate, who decides what cases? If two individuals(or groups) follow separate societal codes, and have separate competitive judicial organizations, who is to be the final arbiter? Is there some kind of over-arching body that determines judicial procedure? In this case, would that body not be the State? Where does the requirement that they cooperate(procedurally) come from?

An instance: You have a piece of paper that says that a car is yours. You rent it to me, we sign a contract. I take the car to the competitor of your judiciary group(which could be anyone, since it's a free market for such services) and buy a piece of paper that says the car is mine. How do you go about getting the car back? What makes your claim on the car any more valid than mine? Your judiciary group has no more claim to absolute authority on the matter than mine(who's just my cousin Eddy, with an online licensure in contract claims).

Unless there is a body that judges the authority of the judges, who is generally agreed upon by society. But that, again, is functionally a State.

[Eran]

Well, in a coalition of states, the contract is fairly voluntary as well. If one doesn't like the rules, one may simply leave. Unless, of course, all other nations have similar policies(have a State).

Likewise, the renters in question have 'voluntarily' enter the rent contract only for a certain definition of 'voluntary'. If all the housing near to where the jobs are are owned by land-lords, and they all use the relatively procedure of hiring a police force to enforce their own idea of law and maintain their property rights, and passing the costs along to their tenants, then I see no real difference between each individual housing group and a 'State', and a functionally monarchic one at that. The only notable difference being in size, and that only maintaining itself until they grow. As many will.

There is a key difference between renting and living in a state. The assumption is that the owner of my building came to own it legitimately. He paid for the building, purchasing it from its previous owner, or paid to have it built. That gives him legitimacy to set rules in the building, to which I must comply or leave.

No state can be similarly shown to legitimately own its land. Without exception, states achieve their sovereignty by conquest or force. Even democratic states never enjoy a consensus support. Even if the majority of my countrymen decided to voluntarily transfer title of their land to the state, their decision cannot legitimately bind me.

Consequently, there is no legitimacy to the state's setting of rules in its territory that is comparable to that of a landlord.

Who enforces the contract, if I decide to renege? More, who enforces the contracts of those who cannot afford to pay for police protection?

Contract enforcement is a service, like any other service. It costs money to produce. People will contract with private agencies for the purpose. The most likely solution (based on people's speculation) is that such enforcement will take the form of an insurance.

Essentially, you will pay a small fee to an insurance company, in exchange for which they will compensate you for any losses due to contract violations. Insurance companies will contract with each other and agree on dispute resolution mechanisms, typically involving arbitration by third parties. There are historic examples (Lex Mercatoria) of completely voluntary mechanisms for contract enforcement.

Poor people have a lot of problems. They need food, shelter, medical care, education and clothing. They also need protection. Protection is likely to be very inexpensive, especially since, by definition, they don't have much by way of property.

Having said that, some people will have to rely on charity for protection, as for their other needs.

No, but they resorted to force. Force that they had a near monopoly on. I do not see how a few private groups sharing a monopoly on the use of force is morally superior to a State holding the monopoly.

Lex Mercatoria operated over a long period of time. For much of it there was no use of force for enforcement - boycott of non-cooperating merchants was enough.

Regardless, in an Anarchy, no group or collection of groups will have monopoly over the use of force. There will be free entry to the market in contract enforcement.

These bodies have authority because the society gives them authority, yes. Other bodies that people would agree have a monopoly on the use of force would also be States.

Yes, but why assume that people would give any body or collection of bodies monopoly? I assert that the principle of free entry will be as cherished as the notion that any citizen can run for office in our society. As long as you don't violate other people's property rights, there is no legitimacy to stop or block you in an Anarchic society. If somebody wants to set up a new private security agency, and as long as he complies with society's expectations for use of force, nobody could legitimately stop him.

I already asked, but this is a good time to reiterate, who decides what cases? If two individuals(or groups) follow separate societal codes, and have separate competitive judicial organizations, who is to be the final arbiter? Is there some kind of over-arching body that determines judicial procedure? In this case, would that body not be the State? Where does the requirement that they cooperate(procedurally) come from?

There is no single body like that. There are likely to be a small number of highly-respected and authoritative bodies specializing in resolving difficult disputes, and effectively acting as courts of appeal.

There is no "requirement" that they cooperate, but it is in their best interests to do so.

To turn the question back to you, consider disputes between citizens of different countries (or even between different countries directly). In a world without a world-government, we still manage to resolve the vast majority of those disputes without resorting to war.

An instance: You have a piece of paper that says that a car is yours. You rent it to me, we sign a contract. I take the car to the competitor of your judiciary group(which could be anyone, since it's a free market for such services) and buy a piece of paper that says the car is mine. How do you go about getting the car back? What makes your claim on the car any more valid than mine? Your judiciary group has no more claim to absolute authority on the matter than mine(who's just my cousin Eddy, with an online licensure in contract claims).

A piece of paper is meaningless. The question is who issued that piece of paper. If it was issued by a reputable title-registration organization, it will be respected by reputable dispute resolution organizations. No group has absolute authority, but society can still differentiate between bodies with less or more authority. In your scenario, I will approach my insurance company and invoke my policy. They will approach you and gently ask you to return the car. If you refuse, they will inquire as to your insurance company. If you have one, the two companies will negotiate. If they cannot reach an agreement, my insurance company will approach a reputable and impartial arbitrator (a mutually agreed one between companies, their choice of one if you refuse to cooperate). The arbitrator will assess the probative value of each of our claims to the car. If my piece of paper comes from a reputable title-registration agency and yours comes from your cousin Eddy, the arbitrator is likely to decide in my favour. At this point, your insurance company will tell you to return the car, and charge you for cost. If you didn't cooperate, my insurance company will send a "repo man" to repossess the car.

In real life, of course, you know in advance that this would be the likely course of events, and you wouldn't even try.

Unless there is a body that judges the authority of the judges, who is generally agreed upon by society. But that, again, is functionally a State.

Society develops recognition of authoritative judges. Banks, insurance companies, enforcement agencies and local arbitrators will all accept some judgements and not others. Compare that to the general acceptance of Visa and Mastercard, and the partial acceptance of other credit cards. No monopoly, no government regulation, and yet worldwide some names are accepted as reliable, and others are not.

Just because Visa has no monopoly does not mean that I can expect to be able to buy items by printing my own plastic card, right?



In the past, I have contemplated the smallest possible state. I came up with the following scenario. Imagine the state is reduced to a Supreme Court. Nine people, and nothing else. No legislative and no executive branches, no lower courts, police or army. Just the Supreme Court.

Any disputes between lower (private) courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has (just like in today's society) the ultimate societal authority, with no enforcement power of its own. I tried to argue that such an arrangement can ensure ultimate legal standardization with the absolute minimal amount of coercion.

From a libertarian perspective, since that Court will have no enforcement power of its own, its role will depend on societal acceptance. If a competing court arose, there would be no mechanism to stop it. However, it is conceivable that no such alternative court will arise, and society, voluntarily, adopt a single ultimate deciding body.

I don't think such a body constitutes a State. What do other people think?

[iriswaters]

There is a key difference between renting and living in a state. The assumption is that the owner of my building came to own it legitimately. He paid for the building, purchasing it from its previous owner, or paid to have it built. That gives him legitimacy to set rules in the building, to which I must comply or leave.

This assumes that giving pieces of paper for land counts as a more legitimate claim of absolute control over the land and the people in it than the use of force. I do not concur.

Essentially, you will pay a small fee to an insurance company, in exchange for which they will compensate you for any losses due to contract violations. Insurance companies will contract with each other and agree on dispute resolution mechanisms, typically involving arbitration by third parties. There are historic examples (Lex Mercatoria) of completely voluntary mechanisms for contract enforcement.

By exerting monopoly control over the use of force, yes(Lex Mercatoria). The over-arching body that set the rules in that system were functionally a State.

Poor people have a lot of problems. They need food, shelter, medical care, education and clothing. They also need protection. Protection is likely to be very inexpensive, especially since, by definition, they don't have much by way of property.

Sure. But at least in some State systems there is at least -someone- looking out for their interests. If we switch from one person one vote to one dollar one vote(even more than we currently have), then their interests will be edged out even farther.

Can you reason out, in your head, why it is impossible to win no-limits poker against an opponent with far more chips than you? Oligarchies work that way.

Having said that, some people will have to rely on charity for protection, as for their other needs.

Because that has a great historical track record of defending the poor from exploitation, and giving them opportunities to better their lives.

Lex Mercatoria operated over a long period of time. For much of it there was no use of force for enforcement - boycott of non-cooperating merchants was enough.

So those in power were able to edge out any who didn't comply. I'll have to look into this circumstance more, because my understanding of it was that the Lex Mercatoria kept mercenary forces and blocked use of the markets by non-complying groups using force.

Regardless, in an Anarchy, no group or collection of groups will have monopoly over the use of force. There will be free entry to the market in contract enforcement.

So the ones who can afford the most force win? Ok, so it's Feudalism all over again. Nice.

Yes, but why assume that people would give any body or collection of bodies monopoly? I assert that the principle of free entry will be as cherished as the notion that any citizen can run for office in our society. As long as you don't violate other people's property rights, there is no legitimacy to stop or block you in an Anarchic society. If somebody wants to set up a new private security agency, and as long as he complies with society's expectations for use of force, nobody could legitimately stop him.

But who decides what is/isn't a violation. You keep referring to this friendly discourse that assumes that you and I are simply going to agree to use the same legal systems. But if I pay to a different system to you, then there -must- be a final arbiter. As in many cases in America today, people will seek a 'higher court of appeals' in circumstances where the standing ruling isn't in their favor(if they can afford to). Not only does this mean more and better justice for the wealthy(which isn't justice at all) it also means that there must eventually be a highest body. A court at which no other appeal is possible and the answer is final. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone who can afford to keep appealing to ever accept a verdict that isn't in their favor. There must be a highest court, or the highest court is either: whoever has more money wins, or whoever has better guns wins(functionally the same)

There is no single body like that. There are likely to be a small number of highly-respected and authoritative bodies specializing in resolving difficult disputes, and effectively acting as courts of appeal.

There is no "requirement" that they cooperate, but it is in their best interests to do so.

To turn the question back to you, consider disputes between citizens of different countries (or even between different countries directly). In a world without a world-government, we still manage to resolve the vast majority of those disputes without resorting to war.

Actually, not really. I mean, we kinda do now due to the threat of nuclear war. But even so we still utilize force wherever we can get away with it. And governments have a pretty bad track record of just deciding to get along. Historically the main arbiter of disputes between nations has been either violence or the threat of violence.

A piece of paper is meaningless. The question is who issued that piece of paper. If it was issued by a reputable title-registration organization, it will be respected by reputable dispute resolution organizations. No group has absolute authority, but society can still differentiate between bodies with less or more authority. In your scenario, I will approach my insurance company and invoke my policy. They will approach you and gently ask you to return the car. If you refuse, they will inquire as to your insurance company. If you have one, the two companies will negotiate. If they cannot reach an agreement, my insurance company will approach a reputable and impartial arbitrator (a mutually agreed one between companies, their choice of one if you refuse to cooperate). The arbitrator will assess the probative value of each of our claims to the car. If my piece of paper comes from a reputable title-registration agency and yours comes from your cousin Eddy, the arbitrator is likely to decide in my favour. At this point, your insurance company will tell you to return the car, and charge you for cost. If you didn't cooperate, my insurance company will send a "repo man" to repossess the car.

Well, your paper was issued by your organization that issues papers, and mine was issued by mine. Your insurance company comes to me and asks me to return the car. I say no. My organization refuses to negotiate, and refuses to arbitrate. You send someone to repo my car, and my local police force sees this as theft and shoots him. Over this and several similar issues, my group and yours go to war.

In real life, of course, you know in advance that this would be the likely course of events, and you wouldn't even try.

Unless my group, like so many groups in this world, implicitly encourages me to take advantage of members of your group whenever I feel like it. Yours is poorer, and has less guns. We use this advantage to repeatedly mess with you in any contracts you make with us. Sure, you can decide not to deal with us, but we decide you are 'non-cooperative' and encourage our friends(your neighbors) to boycott you. Because they have deep contractual arrangements with us, they comply. Eventually, you lose everything, and we offer you a deal on your property. We'll even let you live on the property still, just as our tenants. Since you live on our land, you live by our rules. If you don't like it, you can live elsewhere. Except, all the land is owned by someone, and no one has very nice rule systems available for poor tenants.

Society develops recognition of authoritative judges. Banks, insurance companies, enforcement agencies and local arbitrators will all accept some judgements and not others. Compare that to the general acceptance of Visa and Mastercard, and the partial acceptance of other credit cards. No monopoly, no government regulation, and yet worldwide some names are accepted as reliable, and others are not.

Yep, they accept the ones who made it good early and then kicked out the ladder, creating a functional monopoly.

Just because Visa has no monopoly does not mean that I can expect to be able to buy items by printing my own plastic card, right?

But between these few bodies, they actually -do- have a monopoly. And they have been very good at crushing all attempts to break that monopoly. And due to this, and the fact that they all operate under basically the same system, there is really little true competition.

And if monopolies weren't illegal, odds are quite good that there would have been a trust war between the 2, and one would have emerged ahead. And destroyed the other. Duopolies exist only because the law prevents monopolies.

In the past, I have contemplated the smallest possible state. I came up with the following scenario. Imagine the state is reduced to a Supreme Court. Nine people, and nothing else. No legislative and no executive branches, no lower courts, police or army. Just the Supreme Court.

Any disputes between lower (private) courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has (just like in today's society) the ultimate societal authority, with no enforcement power of its own. I tried to argue that such an arrangement can ensure ultimate legal standardization with the absolute minimal amount of coercion.

So basically the UN. Except the UN cannot enforce anything, because it has no teeth. Similarly, a central Court would only have power if it tended to rule the way the wealthy and powerful wanted it to. The moment it strayed, it would be ignored and it's complete powerlessness would be revealed. It would basically be the rule of the elite. Oligarchy. I oppose Oligarchy.

From a libertarian perspective, since that Court will have no enforcement power of its own, its role will depend on societal acceptance. If a competing court arose, there would be no mechanism to stop it. However, it is conceivable that no such alternative court will arise, and society, voluntarily, adopt a single ultimate deciding body.

It's role would depend not on social acceptance but by the acceptance of the most powerful. Of those whose opinions would count due to wealth, leverage, and the threat of force.
I don't think such a body constitutes a State. What do other people think?[/quote]
Yes, yes I do. It is a State system called Oligarchy.

[Eran]

This assumes that giving pieces of paper for land counts as a more legitimate claim of absolute control over the land and the people in it than the use of force. I do not concur.

I said "legitimately", not "legally". Ideally, legitimate owners can trace their title back to original homesteaders. In practice, a legitimate owner either built the house himself, or purchased it from a presumptively legitimate owner. Owners are presumed legitimate unless a superior claim can be demonstrated.

I own a house in England. I can trace title on the house back to its original construction in the 1930s. I am not aware of any person who claims better title to the house. I think that gives me better claim to it than the Government of Britain, who had nothing to do with building the house in the first place.

By exerting monopoly control over the use of force, yes(Lex Mercatoria). The over-arching body that set the rules in that system were functionally a State.

First, they didn't (typically) use force to enforce their judgement. Second, they weren't a legal monopoly. You needed to deal with them if you wanted to trade with their members. Nobody was forced to. They didn't tax, and didn't prohibit competition, so they weren't a State by my definition.

Sure. But at least in some State systems there is at least -someone- looking out for their interests. If we switch from one person one vote to one dollar one vote(even more than we currently have), then their interests will be edged out even farther.

I disagree. In fact, poor people suffer most under the State. Do you really think police pays as much attention to crime in poor neighbourhoods as in rich ones? Do they have the same access to legal resources as would the public prosecutor? Poor people also suffer most from regulations that cause prices to rise, but that's a separate matter.

If you want to help the poor - by all means. But respect them enough to give them a say in where they need help. Make security private, and give financial help to the poor. Let them decide how much security they want, vs. food, shelter or other things.

Can you reason out, in your head, why it is impossible to win no-limits poker against an opponent with far more chips than you? Oligarchies work that way

Nobody is forced to play.

Because that has a great historical track record of defending the poor from exploitation, and giving them opportunities to better their lives.

The free market gave poor people the best opportunity to better their lives. Freer markets in India and China have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. Dirt-poor immigrants to early 20th century America have lifted themselves out of poverty too.

So the ones who can afford the most force win? Ok, so it's Feudalism all over again. Nice.

Not at all. In every society, it is social norms over the legitimate use of force that rule, rather than raw power. That's why the US is not ruled by its armed forces. The same would hold in an Anarchy - social norms will value private property. Anybody who tried to violate others' private property through the initiation of force will have as much success as a rogue Army general would in today's America.

But who decides what is/isn't a violation. You keep referring to this friendly discourse that assumes that you and I are simply going to agree to use the same legal systems. But if I pay to a different system to you, then there -must- be a final arbiter.

Sure, there will be one. Just not a unique one. My system and yours will have agreed on a third party arbitrator. All disputes will be resolved peacefully because companies that decline to deal peacefully will very VERY quickly go out of business. War is VERY expensive when you have to pay for it yourself (rather than shift the cost to tax-payers).

ot only does this mean more and better justice for the wealthy(which isn't justice at all) it also means that there must eventually be a highest body. A court at which no other appeal is possible and the answer is final. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone who can afford to keep appealing to ever accept a verdict that isn't in their favor. There must be a highest court, or the highest court is either: whoever has more money wins, or whoever has better guns wins(functionally the same)

The real inequity of the American (or any other country) system of justice is not between rich and poor. It is between government and the citizens. Government has virtually infinite resources, sets the laws and assigns the judges. One cannot imagine a less equal playing field than that.

I am not sure I understand your point about appeals. My insurance company and yours have agreed mutually on an arbitrator. Their ruling is generally final. An arrangement could be agreed upon whereby yet another arbitrator can be appealed to, provided that the losing side on the appeal pays its cost. Otherwise, the first "court" decision stands. What do you see as the problem in this system?

Since the "court" was agreed in advance by representatives of both sides, it is much more likely to be objective than in today's society, where people sued by the State have no choice but to be judged by a State judge. Further, the future business of private arbitrators depends on their objectivity (as well as efficiency). A private arbitration company will guard its reputation for impartiality because without it, it loses all its business.

Neither money nor guns matter.

Historically the main arbiter of disputes between nations has been either violence or the threat of violence.

Sure - states are much more likely to go to war than private companies, because state leaders (politicians) can externalize the cost of the war. It is not born by them, but rather by the tax-payers, who also end up dying. A private company without the ability to tax will be very reluctant to enter into an armed conflict.

Having said that, wars are rare. The typical nation (the US being an obvious exception) enters into a war once every few decades. At the same time, millions of transactions between citizens of different countries take place every single day.

My organization refuses to negotiate, and refuses to arbitrate. You send someone to repo my car, and my local police force sees this as theft and shoots him. Over this and several similar issues, my group and yours go to war.

Assuming both our organizations are for-profit corporations, the scenario above makes absolutely no sense. War, as I noted above, is very expensive. You organization cannot tax. It would need to pay very high salary to its employees to compensate them for the risk of armed conflict. Where will all that money come from? It can only come from its subscribers. Which means it would need to charge MUCH higher fees than peaceful organizations. Besides, would you rather give your business to a belligerent organization, which might involve you in hostilities, and because of which your legitimate claims may go unanswered? Or would you rather subscribe to one that "plays by the rules", is connected through a network of agreed arbitration procedures with other reputable organizations, and will insist on a fair procedure to hear any disputes?

If you want to go to imaginary scenarios, what's to stop the President of the United States from ordering the Army to take over Congress? Or from the Chief of Staff to take over leadership of the country? The notion, in today's society, seems absurd. The scenario you paint above would be equally absurd (actually, more so).

Yours is poorer, and has less guns.

There is no correlation between the wealth of the subscribers and that of the organization that represents them. Gordon Ramsey may have rich clients, by McDonald's is much bigger. It is not bigger than Burger King and Wendy's put together though.

Again, if society's norms call for peaceful resolution of conflicts, a belligerent organization has no more chance than a rogue army unit. If it doesn't, than democracy cannot work either.

Yep, they accept the ones who made it good early and then kicked out the ladder, creating a functional monopoly.

But between these few bodies, they actually -do- have a monopoly. And they have been very good at crushing all attempts to break that monopoly. And due to this, and the fact that they all operate under basically the same system, there is really little true competition.

Monopoly requires prohibition on competitive entry. Nothing in my system encourages of even allows such prohibition.

I'd be happy to discuss monopoly (or lack thereof) in a free market. The point is that multiple companies issue broadly-accepted forms of payment. You have Visa and Mastercard, but also American Express and Discover and Diner's Club. You also have (or used to have) various companies issuing Traveller Checks. There are multiple networks of ATM cards.

There is no monopoly, effective or otherwise.

[Melodramatic]

DubiousDan, you claimed that in primitive anarchic societies there was trade. This means a man could decide to put an object he possessed for sale. but by doing so do they not stop possessing it? Could simply claiming you want to sell it replace possession? if so does it not follow that an object can be rented, given with demand of return for a price? again is that possession?

Also could a man trade a piece of unmovable property, like a hut or a field? if the same applies will that not create a state?

The notion of property in both land and portable objects FAR preceded the state.

Correct, although to the best of my knowledge land ownership was centered on immovable property rather than an arbitrarily border.

There is no difference in that regard between property being in somebody's possession, and property belonging to one person and rented for the use of another.

It is far form that simple.

If those allow a person to acquire large land holdings (e.g. by purchasing them outright from their previous legitimate owners), there is no problem, in principle, for him to rent the land out, demand rent, and have that demand enforced, all without the state.

Ownership of a plot of land isstate by definition of both terms. Ownership of only the land you use and occupy is the way "states" can be created without enslaving anyone. The problem is that use itself is a complex definition.

I want to rent the house out to you. You want to rent it from me. We agree on terms, and sign a contract. The contract allows you to possess the house, but only on a conditional basis. Contract terms make it clear that I am still the owner. For example, you are committed to evacuate the house at the end of the rental period, and return it to me.

In doing so he creates a state, and a populated one, again by definition of both state and landlordism. My assessment is that if voluntary agreements create states there is something wrong with your premise. In this case, your property law.

I guess we have different notion of what a "State" is.

why bother fighting over terms when the definition of the most key thinker of anarcho-capitalism gives a perfect one to describe its own failure?

If we both "privatise" the State AND open it to competition, it is no longer a State by this definition.

If you privatize and open the mugging market to competition will it not be aggression?

The standing difficulty with personally funded police/defense forces is the unequal protection it gives separate people.

That seems to exist today. Any American has more protection than myself in Isreal...

It creates war, sometimes. but people who want to work together won't, just like today.

However I do prefer communally funded defense than "for profit" defense immensely.

[Eran]

In doing so he creates a state, and a populated one, again by definition of both state and landlordism. My assessment is that if voluntary agreements create states there is something wrong with your premise. In this case, your property law.

In what sense has a state been created?

If you privatize and open the mugging market to competition will it not be aggression?

I should have expressed myself more carefully. If we privatise the non force-initiating services of the state (e.g. roads, education, dispute resolution) and open it to competition, while eliminating taxation, regulation, legislation and other forms of coercion...

However I do prefer communally funded defense than "for profit" defense immensely.

In the context of defence from ordinary criminals, or from external threats? Modern society is built on the division of labour and specialisation. We don't bake our own bread, why become our own defence force?

[Melodramatic]

Hmm just noticed forgot to add Murry Rothbard's definition, silly me...

[A state ]arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area.

It will help for the following arguments.

In what sense has a state been created?

In the most literal sense possible. A landlord has "a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area". The only difference is that a landlord buys his monopoly while a state uses aggression to establish it. In that sense there is no abolition of the state done, but a privatization of it.

"obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."

Another way to view this is the following: If a man can own a piece of land without maintaining it at all than he only profits from owning land. Eventually, it follows, all land will be owned. Any country, given time, will simply break up into millions of small states. if these will somehow decide to unite, an action totally legitimate buy anarcho-capitalist standards, a you will have the exact same state we have today.

I should have expressed myself more carefully.

Nah I understood what you meant, just me being annoying that's all. Sorry.

If we privatise the non force-initiating services of the state (e.g. roads, education, dispute resolution) and open it to competition, while eliminating taxation, regulation, legislation and other forms of coercion...

For that I prefer to use the term ""government" rather than "state". Government is a tool used by the state. In an industrial society it is indeed likely that such services will be offed privately or communally.

In the context of defence from ordinary criminals, or from external threats?

Both.

Modern society is built on the division of labour and specialisation.

Something I'd like to minimize, but that's beside the point.

We don't bake our own bread, why become our own defence force?

Correct, in an industrial and modern society there is no reason to believe individuals will protect themselves. I was referring to a community deciding to run defense by itself, similarly to creating a police force or army. Its simply a defense corporation owned by a community, rather than private hands to prevent the dangers of the profit motive (and I think it is redundant to list them). Without defense all of these pretty ideals mean nothing, I want the people to have direct influence and ownership of it. I believe this same principle for many things, including welfare, health-care and such. Ideally this could be extended further, but that's a different story.

Note all this is within the boundaries of voluntary communities.

[Eran]

In the most literal sense possible. A landlord has "a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area". The only difference is that a landlord buys his monopoly while a state uses aggression to establish it. In that sense there is no abolition of the state done, but a privatization of it.

"The only difference"? This is like saying that the only difference between an honest man and a criminal is that the former earns his living, while the latter robs others. This "only" difference is the most important (from a moral perspective) one.

Another way to view this is the following: If a man can own a piece of land without maintaining it at all than he only profits from owning land. Eventually, it follows, all land will be owned. Any country, given time, will simply break up into millions of small states. if these will somehow decide to unite, an action totally legitimate buy anarcho-capitalist standards, a you will have the exact same state we have today.

I agree. Provided, of course, that the emergent state will only have jurisdiction over land, not over people's bodies. It will only have jurisdiction of land that has been homesteaded (cultivated or otherwise brought into use), unlike modern states.

For that I prefer to use the term ""government" rather than "state". Government is a tool used by the state. In an industrial society it is indeed likely that such services will be offed privately or communally.

Not that it matters that much, but I tend to think of things in reverse - the state is a tool used by government. Government is the ruling class of society. The analogy to state/government is corporation/management.

I completely agree with your second statement.

Something I'd like to minimize, but that's beside the point.

Odd. I think prosperity depends critically on division of labour. Self-sufficiency is a recipe for poverty.

I was referring to a community deciding to run defense by itself, similarly to creating a police force or army. Its simply a defense corporation owned by a community, rather than private hands to prevent the dangers of the profit motive (and I think it is redundant to list them). Without defense all of these pretty ideals mean nothing, I want the people to have direct influence and ownership of it. I believe this same principle for many things, including welfare, health-care and such. Ideally this could be extended further, but that's a different story.

Note all this is within the boundaries of voluntary communities.

Within the boundaries of voluntary communities, any course chosen by the community would be legitimate. I think communities would/should strike a balance, with a healthy dose of self-armed militias, but some professionalisation and specialisation.

[Melodramatic]

This is like saying that the only difference between an honest man and a criminal is that the former earns his living, while the latter robs others.

It is irrelevant how a state comes to being. it is still a state, therefore an enemy of anarchism. It will be just as bad as the modern state, if not worse, and the people will have no way to stop it from emerging as it is part of the system. We could have endless discussions regarding the nature of property, but at least acknowledge that capitalist landlordism contradicts with anarchism.

Provided, of course, that the emergent state will only have jurisdiction over land, not over people's bodies.

The difference is negligible. by being on the states land you subject yourself to its rule completely.

It will only have jurisdiction of land that has been homesteaded (cultivated or otherwise brought into use), unlike modern states.

Seeing as that is a profit only investment due to the following monopoly, all land will be eventually homesteaded.

Not that it matters that much, but I tend to think of things in reverse - the state is a tool used by government. Government is the ruling class of society. The analogy to state/government is corporation/management.

I completely agree with your second statement.

Indeed, lets skip the argument on semantics.

Within the boundaries of voluntary communities, any course chosen by the community would be legitimate.

Indeed, but not every action will be smart, and some actions might increase the danger of states forming.

I think communities would/should strike a balance, with a healthy dose of self-armed militias, but some professionalisation and specialisation.

Ah, while true, that's not my point. Its not the form or structure of the army, it can be as professional as the people want, it is who runs it. If run by private corporations it can lead to dangerous outcomes, as defense is no simple commodity. Private armies in Iraq come to mind...

If controlled by the community, its actions mandated and regulated by its (preferably democratically chosen) rules, it could mean the difference between a two decade anarchy to a millennium of such.

[Eran]

Let's not engage in a semantic debate. You might call my house a State because I get to set the rules in it. It is just a label.

I feel a State is evil because it engages in routine aggression against people's just property. A society in which people exert control over their legitimate property is a just society, whether that property is their own body, movable objects, or real-estate.

If a system is both just and likely to give rise to a prosperous society, its label is immaterial.

Now I would love to hear how a system in which, having worked hard to clear and fence a field, and maybe work it for a few years and build a cabin next to yet, I don't get to exclude newcomers from trampling all over it and sleeping in my bedroom, is either just, or likely to encourage people to work and produce so as to create a prosperous society.

[Melodramatic]

Let's not engage in a semantic debate.

Indeed, no point in it. But you will have acknowledge that your system is no anarchism. In my short period as a anarcho-capitalist that is what always bothered me. It doesn't really do anything, but break the state into smaller ones, which are deemed "just". The system has no choice but to destroy itself, destroy its purpose.

I feel a State is evil because it engages in routine aggression against people's just property.

Although I would not say evil, a bit archaic for my taste, I agree. That is why I reject both big conqueror states and small wealth created ones.

A society in which people exert control over their legitimate property is a just society

I will not say so, but I would agree that is the basis of the definition of "just".

whether that property is their own body, movable objects, or real-estate.

Again I agree. Given it is legitimate. Property that creates state cannot be legitimate in anarchism. That is because it is illogical, a meaningless title, that requires a state to exist.

Now I would love to hear how a system in which, having worked hard to clear and fence a field, and maybe work it for a few years and build a cabin next to yet, I don't get to exclude newcomers from trampling all over it and sleeping in my bedroom, is either just, or likely to encourage people to work and produce so as to create a prosperous society.

The best definition I had so far was property based on use and occupation. "Possession" as Proudhon put it. I have yet to work out its problems, but they are not problems of practicality but problems of the same sort as anarcho-capitalism's. Regardless, I will not accept a state neither, one created by a fat cat or one created by a warlord.

[Eran]

Indeed, no point in it. But you will have acknowledge that your system is no anarchism. In my short period as a anarcho-capitalist that is what always bothered me. It doesn't really do anything, but break the state into smaller ones, which are deemed "just". The system has no choice but to destroy itself, destroy its purpose.

Setting aside semantics, what do I care whether the system is "anarchism" or not? The system, imo, is not just "deemed just". It IS just. And isn't that a very important consideration? Much more just, btw, than a system in which a person's hard work in putting to use a piece of land can be undone by any subsequent visitor. Call it what you want - I think it is a superior system. Let's discuss its merits.

Although I would not say evil, a bit archaic for my taste, I agree. That is why I reject both big conqueror states and small wealth created ones

We need to understand, then, whether "small wealth created" states are indeed unjust. I claim they are not - in fact, they are the manifestation of justices ("giving each his due").

Property that creates state cannot be legitimate in anarchism. That is because it is illogical, a meaningless title, that requires a state to exist.

I am not sure what your understanding of the concept of "property" is in the context of land. Property generally includes the exclusive right to control and use. Do you believe in allowing people to own land? If so, what does such ownership entail, in your mind? If not, how is it just, given a scenario in which a person invests years of labour in clearing and putting to use a previously-unused piece of land?

The best definition I had so far was property based on use and occupation. "Possession" as Proudhon put it.

I don't understand how that restriction helps your concern. Say I use and occupy a piece of land. Is it not, by your own definition, a mini-state? If not, what's the difference?

[copaceticmind]

I'm sure everyone has noticed the two competing definitions of "state" here, so lets clear the muddy waters. If you define a state as any person or group of people who govern a specific geographical area then I am not against states per se.

Because anarchy is, by definition, anti-state it's easy to get caught up into the idea that anything representing a state should be abolished in an anarchy, but the abolishment of the state is not a first principle in anarchic philosophy. What I would consider to be first principles are non-aggression, self-ownership, and property rights among others. The only anarchy is generally anti-state is because states go against these first principles. Anything that does not violate these principles (even if you would consider it to be a "state") is not philosophically opposed to anarchy.

[Eran]

To spend one moment on semantics, Anarchy literally means "no ruler" rather than "no state". To claim that a person exercising proprietary ownership over his own, legitimately owned land is a "ruler", and that such ownership is a state is like calling self-ownership "slavery" because you are your own slave.

In other words, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, at least as Anarcho-Capitalists understand it, every person rules himself and his own property. There is no "ruler" in the sense of one person (or group) exercising control over other people and their property.

[Melodramatic]

Setting aside semantics, what do I care whether the system is "anarchism" or not?

For me its a guiding principle. I do not oppose the state because it was not bought properly. I oppose it because it is a state, because it is slavery. If a system creates states, there is something wrong with the system. Truly, I see no reason to support a system that just moves the power directly to the elite rather than letting them control you indirectly, a system that changes nothing.

If I would have lived under anarcho-capitalism my beliefs would be no different, just with a different oppressor.

Call it what you want - I think it is a superior system.

Supposed superiority is irrelevant, and so is supposed justice. It is the state and a state title, it is privilege, it is intervention in the market and it is a monopoly and therefore it is obsolete for free people and will be abolished.

Let's discuss its merits.

Fair enough. I deem it unnatural, therefore a social construct, and exploitative (although you probably don't really care about that do you?). If people choose it that's just fine, but I do not want it forced on them. Property is part of the definition of violence, of aggression. Anarchism is about no aggression right? So the thing is not to define why should I not take something someone else owns, ownership is a claim that can be made on anything from someone else car to the moon, but why using an item can be an act of violence. Why is taking your hat considered theft? because you are taking something from the possession of another individual. Its his hat. If you take something from someones house it is their house, the house they live in, an extension of possession through proof of ownership.

If I build a house on an empty piece of land, please tell me, by what right can a man demand rent from me? by what right can he prevent my access or even kill me? In your system he has full right. He could simply, say, build a fence around it. "I'm sorry, you can't go in here, there is a fence". That will not work without some state aggression.

But lets take it even further. Say he does use the land thoroughly. He builds a house there and lives in it for say ten years. he than leaves the house and has no intention to reuse it whatsoever. By what right can he prevent me form using it? "I'm sorry, you can't live here because I once did".

Now lets take it a final step further. Say a man plants a field. The field is his, no doubt. he uses for thirty years and than retires. seeing as at the moment there was an abundance of fields no one else wanted it and it died, or the plant version of such. Than a few years later a young couple sees the empty land and wants to build a home there. They build a nice home and are joyous and happy. suddenly a man they have never met before comes up and says "I'm sorry, there was once a field here and you will have to pay me to build a home here". economic slavery, because the spot was eternally reserved for some farmer who once had a field there. In anarchism, he will get a face full of led. A state, however, will be able to effectively reserve the space for him.

Now there is the problem of existing property. I don't know if you heard, but today the state assigns all land based property. All of it. The entire system is based on the state deciding who gets to use what and for how much. Even if later transaction are "free", by capitalist terms, the original distribution is state based. Seeing how land titles are eternal under capitalism, the entire social order and power distribution in the years to come will be based on this distribution if not changed. In Israel, for example, all lands were conquered and reserved for the "Jewish people", legally owned by private companies whose purpose it to do just that. The Palestinians, who's economical state is not quite positive to begin with, will be left with nothing. they will have the right to choose their slave-master, but I suppose they already have that. I quite frankly have no idea how the capitalists can change that.

Even if they do abolish existing titles or some-such, however, the state created wealth given to them, or any upper class, will recreate the uneven ownership and slavery anyway. It is the way of capitalism. To give a man privilege is nothing. It is a passing moment with no meaning. To create a system is which privilege and wealth can be artificial maintained to eternity, was the purpose of the ruling class from day one. Land titles and rent were created for feudal lords, or their primitive ancestors. They are the state.

Capitalism and Anarchism are incompatible in their very core.

I claim they are not - in fact, they are the manifestation of justices ("giving each his due").

If each was given his due there would be no rent.

Do you believe in allowing people to own land?

I allow nothing, for I am not a state and therefore can restrict nothing. I do respect the fact that my neighbors house is their own and will consider a man entering their home, without their consent, violent.

I don't understand how that restriction helps your concern.

It does not magically fix it. It is still authoritarian, all property is monopoly. I simply propose that if a state creates no slavery, it is harmless. If a man owns only what he occupies, and not what anyone else occupies it is forgivable, effectively an abolition of state. The idea of totally replacing private property with community seems positive to me, a truer anarchism, but if it is to be done without state basic property must be defined. The details are the problem, a critical one. My solution is imperfect because it leaves room for capitalism and slavery.

Is it not, by your own definition, a mini-state?

As said, it is. However, unlike capitalists, I do not accept state capitalism definition of property, including all slavery and exploitation, just because it works well with the hierarchical mode of production.

I'm sure everyone has noticed the two competing definitions of "state" here, so lets clear the muddy waters.

What is said second definition of state?

What I would consider to be first principles are non-aggression, self-ownership, and property rights among others.

That is a mistake. Property rights are historically based on society, through consensus of public opinion. If anarchism is property rights than it can be rightfully claimed to be forced on certain communities. For anarchism to be truly the definition of freedom, rather than a system whose profit can always be debated, anything that is part of the anarchist meta-system must be derived form self-defense (or non aggression). Anarchism is universal.

To spend one moment on semantics, Anarchy literally means "no ruler" rather than "no state".

Correct, and Anarchism is by definition whose goal is the abolition of state.

In other words, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, at least as Anarcho-Capitalists understand it, every person rules himself and his own property. There is no "ruler" in the sense of one person (or group) exercising control over other people and their property.

That is a twist of the original definition. Anarchy means no ruler, that everybody can do as he wishes without anybody telling him he cant, and anarchists later added the "as long as he does not hurt nobody" (well actually that wasn't their focus to begin with, only a-caps really focused on that and they came much later). It does not mean that anybody can do whatever he wants as long as he don't step on the land of some landlord. That's called monarchy.

[copaceticmind]

What is said second definition of state?

A state is a person or group of people with a monopoly on the right to legitimately initiate the use of force. A private owner does not fall under this category. The force he uses to control and protect his property should only be a reaction to force. If not then his actions are immoral.

If I build a house on an empty piece of land, please tell me, by what right can a man demand rent from me? by what right can he prevent my access or even kill me? In your system he has full right. He could simply, say, build a fence around it. "I'm sorry, you can't go in here, there is a fence". That will not work without some state aggression.

But lets take it even further. Say he does use the land thoroughly. He builds a house there and lives in it for say ten years. he than leaves the house and has no intention to reuse it whatsoever. By what right can he prevent me form using it? "I'm sorry, you can't live here because I once did".

Attempting to dictate the use of any property without being its legitimate owner is a form of aggression. The only question is who should be considered the legitimate owner. I once again present you with the question of why is real estate any different from any other type of property. In the case of any other type of property it is perfectly legitimate for a rightful owner to lend use and possession while retaining rightful ownership. Why is real estate different?

As to the idea that property is monopoly, we've covered this before and I'm pretty sure there is nothing to support the idea that ownership of any property is, in and of itself, a monopoly of the market for that type of property.

...just with a different oppressor.

That's like calling me an oppressor because I wont let you suck on my lollipop. It's my lollipop...get over it.

[Melodramatic]

A private owner does not fall under this category.

I see no reason for that.

The force he uses to control and protect his property should only be a reaction to force.

Incorrect. I go in to your house. Am I using force? no. That's just a fact. Because you deem it his property, therefore giving him the right to legitimization innate force, he can do so without it being aggression. The state always deems its violence "justice" and the violence of its people "crime". This is no different.

Attempting to dictate the use of any property without being its legitimate owner is a form of aggression.

Again, incorrect due to above. but that is irrelevant.

The only question is who should be considered the legitimate owner.

My point was that capitalist property requires an unnatural reservation of property. One that both needs and creates the state.

I once again present you with the question of why is real estate any different from any other type of property. In the case of any other type of property it is perfectly legitimate for a rightful owner to lend use and possession while retaining rightful ownership. Why is real estate different?

Although generally different, it might theoretically not be different in this case. Chattel property is less of a problem, as it will rarely create slavery, but there is no real reason for it not to apply. Perhaps the only relevant difference is that you can't loose land...

That's like calling me an oppressor because I wont let you suck on my lollipop.

If you claim ownership of other peoples lollipops, just because you claim you once used them, and the lollipop is a, say, cure for cancer I will call you an oppressor.

It's my lollipop...get over it.

Its my united states. Get over it.

I'd like to hear sir Obama say that.

[copaceticmind]

I go in to your house. Am I using force? no. That's just a fact.

I completely disagree. Just because a trespasser didn't punch somebody in the nose does not mean didn't use force. Just because no person was physically harmed, or even touched, does not necessarily mean that no force was used. The social norm is typically that a person's house is his personal space and should not be entered without permission. A person trespassing someone else's personal space should be expelled with an appropriate amount of force. I don't know how you could possibly disagree with this. Perhaps you don't, and should this be the case you'll have to explain either how the use of force to kick someone out of your personal space, although initiated, is legitimate, or why it is completely fine for anyone to walk up into your house.

Attempting to dictate the use of any property without being its legitimate owner is a form of aggression.

Again, incorrect due to above. but that is irrelevant.

Howso? First let me clarify my statement by dropping the "attempt." Try as you might, it isn't force until you actually make a legitimate owner use his property in a way he doesn't agree with. Let's say you own a car, and I try to get you to give a ride to the hospital. You refuse, at which point I just open the passenger door and get in. What is your opinion of this situation?

Although generally different, it might theoretically not be different in this case.

In the case of lending use and possession?

If you claim ownership of other peoples lollipops, just because you claim you once used them, and the lollipop is a, say, cure for cancer I will call you an oppressor.

If I were the only manufacturer of said cancer-curing lollipops (so effective just one lick will cure you) and I set up clinics where people could come in and pay for a lick or two (but never take them home) then, yes, I would repossess MY lollipop and possibly deny you entry into any clinics should you ever need it in the future since you obviously violated my property rights by coming into the possession of something that was obviously stolen. Call me an oppressor if you will...it's still MY lollipop.

Property rights isn't just some vague cultural opinion of legitimate possession. These rights are completely natural and apply to every human being. If you want to argue that land can not be legitimately owned by a private party then, by all means, do so. I've been patiently waiting. So far, you have done little to nothing to show that land is somehow different from chattel property.

Please disprove the following statement: Private ownership of real state is not a monopoly any more than the private ownership of a lollipop. (Even if it does cure cancer. )

[Melodramatic]

Just because a trespasser didn't punch somebody in the nose does not mean didn't use force.

It does.

Just because no person was physically harmed, or even touched, does not necessarily mean that no force was used.

It does.

The social norm is typically that a person's house is his personal space and should not be entered without permission.

Correct. Social standard is that possession can be extended by proof of ownership and that taking an object in the possession of others is aggressive. but I lost my original point already, lets not waste more time on this, I was making no real claim there, just arguing semantics.

What is your opinion of this situation?

An object was taken out of your possession. You will react violently.

In the case of lending use and possession?

One can lend use, if agreed by both parties. The person that the object is landed to must use it however, otherwise it would undermine the whole principle. I will save you the trouble and this irrelevancy about the difference between chattel and real property and say it bluntly, it means there can be rent, and therefore there can be states. That's a problem I have yet to solve, or even understand it source.

It is, however a problem because it legitimizes the lollipop situation, which is, as you clearly stated, the equivalent of a state.