[Eran]

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.

Please explain why a system in which ownership of natural resources is only conveyed on the first user is any way akin to slavery.

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is the state and a state title, it is privilege, it is intervention in the market and it is a monopoly and therefore it is obsolete for free people and will be abolished.

How can you have a market without property? How can you have property without the right to exclude? How can you have a right to exclude without, by your logic, calling it a "state"?

Property is part of the definition of violence, of aggression. Anarchism is about no aggression right?

Where is any aggression in homesteading a natural resource previously unclaimed? Having homesteaded a plot of land, who is the aggressor, the farmer protecting his land, or a new-comer claiming equal access to it?

Remember, in Anarcho-Capitalism, original acquisition of title in land is not arbitrary. It is not based on merely fencing a piece of land. It is based on putting work into making it, from wilderness to an economically productive asset. Can you suggest a remotely practical society (beyond hunter-gatherer technology) in which people do not have the right to exclude others from the land they cultivate?

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".

Houses can be used in many ways. Living in them is one. Renting them out is another. By your logic, say we have a dairy farmer who produces 1,000 gallons of milk a day. Obviously, he has no intention of drinking all that milk. By what right can he prevent me from just taking the milk without compensation? "I'm sorry, you cannot drink this milk because it came out of my cows"?

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.

Land can be abandoned, at which point is becomes unowned again. Do you seriously suggest that your objection to Anarcho-Capitalism is based to a significant degree on the question of abandoned land?

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

I don't see your point. I do not support land-based assignment of land-based property, but rather assignment of property rights based on factual claims for original homesteading. We can debate the proper way to transition from our current society to a just Anarcho-Capitalist one (I have some ideas), or we can contemplate a group of pioneers who just landed on a large uninhabited continent. I don't see how past state injustices are in any way an argument against a political philosophy that rejects the state (in its conventional, not private, sense).

It is the way of capitalism. To give a man privilege is nothing.

Is it your claim that a group of pioneers on a new continent, conducting themselves on Anarcho-Capitalist principles, will end up with "privilege for nothing"?

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

How about hotels? Do you think they are legitimately charging "rent" for their rooms? How about vacation properties? How do you feel about contractors who build homes and then sell them to home-owners? Legitimate?

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.

So you would support societal standards that recognize the right of a person to exclusive control over land, at least in some circumstances? For example, your neighbours can legitimately exclude strangers from entering their home? Is their home a "state"?

[ingliz]

We can debate the proper way to transition from our current society to a just Anarcho-Capitalist one

A fruitless pursuit as a society is not, and has never been, the conscious creation of a rational agent.

[Eran]

Yes and no. I agree that societal evolution is rarely a the result of a rational design. However, such hypotheticals are useful to understanding other people's views. Do people object to Anarcho-Capitalism because of the historic legacy of state intervention on behalf of upper classes, or do they believe that the system would be either unworkable or unjust?

[ingliz]

Do people object to Anarcho-Capitalism because...

There has never been and never will be a capitalist system without some sort of state; being inherently authoritarian and hierarchical, the system is unworkable in anarchy.

As Marx and Engels pointed out, base determines superstructure. The capitalist mode of production, the economic basis of an An-Cap society, determines that statist institutions and power relations inevitably arise.

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life.

Unsurprisingly, social anarchists object to an-caps labelling themselves anarchists because Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchic.

[Eran]

To my knowledge, neither Marx nor Engels ever considered an Anarcho-Capitalist society. Just because Capitalism arose in the context of, and continues to operate under a State system is not, in and by itself, a proof of anything.

The supporters of Marx and Engels should be the first to acknowledge that new forms of organizing society are possible, and that principled advocacy of such forms has a real power to bring them about.

[copaceticmind]

Melo:

If I break into your house, I "forced" my way in. No, I didn't not use any physical force against you, but force was used, and it was used against your property. The initiation of the use of force on someone's private property is just as immoral as its use against the person. In the case of the car, by sitting in your passenger seat I am not in any way attempting to remove it from your possession. I am merely trying to dictate the use of it. If you do not agree with my sitting in your car then I am forcing my will upon your property. This is force, and I have initiated it. You may now morally use an appropriate amount of force in response.

I am still waiting on how private ownership of property is a monopoly. And how it is, by definition, slavery.

And I want to reiterate my point that anarchism is not against the existence of a state because it is inherently against the existence of a state. It is because states initiate the use of force upon people and their property. If a state can exist without doing this then I, as an anarchist, do not disagree with its existence. In the case of a "private state," if that's what you want to call it, the owner is not inherently initiating any force, even if he is collecting rent while not actively using it for himself as a residence.

[ingliz]

new forms of organizing society are possible

An-Caps are not advocating the organisation of a "new form of society", plutocracy is not new.

... the Roman Republic, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage

[Eran]

ingliz,
Now I understand your confusion. You think Anarcho-Capitalism is the same as Plutocracy. It isn't.

As a definitional matter, Plutocracy is government by the wealthy. Anarcho-Capitalism entails no government at all.

In a Plutocracy, the wealthy could, for example, tax poor people. Or legally prohibit newcomers from competing with them. Or establish maximum wage regulations. None of those would be possible under Anarcho-Capitalism.

[ingliz]

You think Anarcho-Capitalism is the same as Plutocracy. It isn't.

No?

None of those would be possible under Anarcho-Capitalism.

Are you sure? Taxing the propertyless would seem to be the most practicable way for a cartel of property owners to pay for a judiciary to administer, and a defence association to enforce, a code of laws created by property owners to protect propertied interests in a capitalist "anarchy".

Most people work and/or live in rented accommodation. If property owners decided they needed defence associations and a code of laws to protect their property wouldn't they be exercising "a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence over a given area"

And if the costs of these associations were deducted from the wealth created by those who use, but do not own, the property (Workers paying for the agencies that enforce their employers authority over them) is this not taxation?

Anarcho-Capitalism entails no government at all.

Identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships.

Property rights and obligations in an anarcho-capitalist society, a capitalist bundle of rights and obligations, would necessarily produce an authoritarian institutional framework to enforce them similar to that of the state you wish to dismantle.

[Eran]

I understand your point. Within the private property of a single owner, you can indeed think of the owner as "government".

Cartels and monopolies do not, as a practical matter, occur in the private market, at least not cartels or monopolies that act to the detriment of consumers. The only possible exception I am aware of is DeBeers.

Can you give examples to the contrary?

Property rights and obligations in an anarcho-capitalist society, a capitalist bundle of rights and obligations, would necessarily produce an authoritarian institutional framework to enforce them similar to that of the state you wish to dismantle.

Some aspects would probably be similar. For example, production will probably still take place in factories in which an employer employs a large number of employees while setting the rules for their employment.

However, without the power of government behind them, employers have to compete for employees just like they have to compete for customers. That competition, often abused by government power, will inevitably work to improve the lot of all members of society.

[ingliz]

Can you give examples to the contrary?

Monsanto

[Eran]

Cartels and monopolies do not, as a practical matter, occur in the private market, at least not cartels or monopolies that act to the detriment of consumers.

The story you linked to has Monsanto harassing farmers on patent violations - patents are monopoly rights issued and enforced by the state. They have no place in a private market.

I, and many if not all Anarcho-Capitalists opposed Intellectual Property rights.

[ingliz]

I, and many if not all Anarcho-Capitalists opposed Intellectual Property rights

Have I missed something, or is your argument changing? I am not sure. I don't understand why you wrote that and how it ties into your previous argument.

Your argument was so simple a couple of posts ago, so black and white: Wealth is power, so let the wealthy exercise it without restraint.

All over this thread you have defended a sovereign right of property owners to defend their interests as they see fit but now you hint at shades of grey that turn on a point of principle.

You seem to be saying that there will be an an overarching "legal-political entity which is capable of producing laws and enacting them... which is external to and autonomous from civil society" to prevent corporations from creating patent law and enforcing monopoly rights in your "anarchy".

[Eran]

You seem to be saying that there will be an an overarching "legal-political entity which is capable of producing laws and enacting them... which is external to and autonomous from civil society" to prevent corporations from creating patent law and enforcing monopoly rights in your "anarchy".

Corporations never "create patent law". Patent law is, and has always been, a creation of the state.

My point all along is that in a free market, corporations do not, as a matter of practice, ever achieve malevolent monopolistic positions. Patents are NOT part of the free market.

In my system there would not be a "legal-political entity capable of producing laws". In fact, laws are not going to be "produced" at all. Rather, they emerge in society, and subsequently discovered by judges.

[ingliz]

Corporations never "create patent law". Patent law is, and has always been, a creation of the state.

If corporations, or groups of corporations, with the resources of small to medium sized states fulfil the function of the state (ie. they make and enforce law) why wouldn't they create patent law if it was in their interest to do so?

Patents are NOT part of the free market.

An-caps, at least those that employ your arguments in favour of capitalist anarchy, do not advocate a perfectly competitive market. Your arguments spelt out how groups of like-minded citzens would form out of mutual interest to create and enforce law that defended those interests.

The "new" system would actively encourage cartelisation.

In my system there would not be a "legal-political entity capable of producing laws". In fact, laws are not going to be "produced" at all. Rather, they emerge in society, and subsequently discovered by judges.

Happy-clappy utopian drivel that goes against everything you have previously argued!

[Eran]

If corporations, or groups of corporations, with the resources of small to medium sized states fulfil the function of the state (ie. they make and enforce law) why wouldn't they create patent law if it was in their interest to do so?

You are assuming what I am questioning, namely that corporations in a free market will ever achieve a position of dominance in a wide society (as opposed to a single "company town").

If a corporation tried to impose intellectual property on land it owns, it would be welcome to do so. However, it would be out-competed by other corporations (and non-corporate entities) who do not.

An-caps, at least those that employ your arguments in favour of capitalist anarchy, do not advocate a perfectly competitive market. Your arguments spelt out how groups of like-minded citzens would form out of mutual interest to create and enforce law that defended those interests.

The "new" system would actively encourage cartelisation.

In the past, many corporations tried forming cartels. They invariably failed (without government help) because cartel members (not to mention competitors from outside the cartel) tend to "cheat".

That's very different from the groupings of like-minded citizens I had in mind. Those groupings would work together to achieve common goals, but not in ways where "cheating" pays off.

Happy-clappy utopian drivel that goes against everything you have previously argued!

I can see where some confusion might come in. I don't believe there will be a single legal-political entity creating laws, but there may well be gravitation towards a uniform codification of broadly-accepted legal principles. That unification will only take place in the context of a competitive market in adjudication. It will happen if it makes sense economically (just like it makes sense for all web pages to use the same html language).

That mechanism, however, could still never produce intellectual property laws. The only example of "private" abuse you showed so far critically depends on state monopoly.

[ingliz]

The only example of "private" abuse you showed so far critically depends on state monopoly.

The United Fruit Company, Coca-Cola, etc. etc. Of course, you can say private abuse depends on state monopoly, but when the company or companies are the state, or act like a state, what does that matter?

If a corporation tried to impose....

If your competitive micro states/non-states stand alone, so much the better, they can be picked off piecemeal. The Mafia didn't own the districts it operated in.

The New York metropolitan area, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago, for most of the 20th century there were Cosa Nostra families controlling the rackets in at least 26 cities around the United States with many more offshoots, splinter groups and associates in other cities. Yes, they fought off the competition when needs be, but more usually they came to some sort of arrangement and took a cut of the business from the franchisee.

If the US cannot not control such gangs and their affiliates, why would you think the small, weak and failed "states" we expect to find in anarchy, that lack the technical resources and repressive security apparatus of big government, could?.

If I were CEO of a large corporation in your capitalist anarchy, terror would be my business model.

Capitalism within the [liberal, democratic] state is restrained in the interest of stability; it is subordinated to democratically legitimised law. Beyond the regulatory power of the state, capitalism is essentially... terrifying.

[Eran]

If the US cannot not control such gangs and their affiliates, why would you think the small, weak and failed "states" we expect to find in anarchy, that lack the technical resources and repressive security apparatus of big government, could?

How do you explain the disappearance of organized crime from the distribution of alcohol as soon as prohibition ended?

It is actually fairly easy for an organized group that enjoys popular support to suppress true criminals.

What the US government failed to do is to suppress economic activities where both sides wanted to transact. That was the case with alcohol during prohibition, and with drugs today.

Once you eliminate victimless crimes, crime levels will drop instantly. Once you allow true competition in crime prevention and suppression, violent crime will similarly drop.

If I were CEO of a large corporation in your capitalist anarchy, terror would be my business model.

If you were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would organizing a coup be part of your strategic plan?

If you were the CEO of a large corporation in my capitalist anarchy, you would be fired the instance any board member realizes that you plan to put in jeopardy the survival of the corporation by pursuing criminal activities. That's because otherwise, your corporation will find itself facing all the rest of society. If the US armed forces don't feel strong enough to face the rest of society, if Middle Eastern dictators so obviously fail, what makes you think a single corporation, large as it may be, could do so?

Remember, my free society will not come about before a belief in the sanctity of private property is as widespread as the belief in the legitimacy of the democratic state currently is in the West.