NationStates Jolt Archive

This did not need two threads.

once more...there is no such thing. Not in reality.

Alright you crazy leftists, explain away private property.

EDIT: For clarity's sake,

Show me why we should form our economic model without it.

Show me how we would form our economic model without it.

Or for the really adventurous, show me why it doesn't exist.

This did not need two threads.

Like there are a ton of great threads fighting for the first page right now.

That's not really an explanation, is it?

Well...I guess in the sense of social ownership (or rather the State) its not...no.

once more...there is no such thing. Not in reality.

That's not really an explanation, is it?

There is no conclusive reason to beleive that anything exists. Therefore, there is no conclusive reason to beleive that property exists.

Happy? :p

Yay for solipsism!

There is no conclusive reason to beleive that anything exists. Therefore, there is no conclusive reason to beleive that property exists.

Happy? :p

Yay for solipsism!

I am but then I just got back from a 'coffeeshop' ;)

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that eeryone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore? By extension then aren't ALL communists whores?

Why do I feel like everyones on drugs right now?

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that eeryone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore?

Sounds just like me...

vonners <---- digital prostitute

Why do I feel like everyones on drugs right now?

Because Jolt is high as a kite right now, and we are all getting a contact buzz.

Because Jolt is high as a kite right now, and we are all getting a contact buzz.

Makes sense, i'm not even sure this thread exists :eek:

Makes sense, i'm not even sure this thread exists :eek:

LOL!! sorry...my fault ;)

Alright you crazy leftists, explain away private property.

Delusion mixed with an overweening sense of entitlement.

LOL!! sorry...my fault ;)

no good thread stealers... hrmph!

Delusion mixed with an overweening sense of entitlement.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

I'm confused. Why are there two threads for one question?

I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

Well, that's not too surprising. You asked us crazy leftists to explain away private property. My answer is that private property can be explained away as delusion, mixed with an overweening sense of entitlement (on the part of the one claiming 'ownership').

All clearly delineated now?

All clearly delineated now?

Perfectly.

There is no conclusive reason to beleive that anything exists. Therefore, there is no conclusive reason to beleive that property exists.

Happy? :p

Yay for solipsism!

right. i will now refer to "tangible" things in "quotes". smartass.
:):)

private ownership = bad
therefore private property = bad.

i don't really feel like getting any less vague. this second thread was a dumb idea. keep to the one, please.

I would define rights as being something socially determined. The reason for this is because a right isn't a right unless you have other people protecting it for you - it would merely be an ability.
Since rights are socially determined, the default position would be that all natural resources are of the common stock unless there is a specific social contract stating otherwise. (And of course, this social contract wouldn't necessarily extend to people outside of the contract.)

private ownership = bad
therefore private property = bad.

i don't really feel like getting any less vague. this second thread was a dumb idea. keep to the one, please.

If there were any adequate discussion of this rather than baseless statements, then the second thread would have been an ok idea.

In a communist society where prostitution is legal - would his or her body be community property? If so - then wouldn't that mean that eeryone's body would be community property? Therefore wouldn't that mean everyone would be a whore? By extension then aren't ALL communists whores?

Nobody has adequately responded to this valid statement. Must be true.

I would define rights as being something socially determined. The reason for this is because a right isn't a right unless you have other people protecting it for you - it would merely be an ability.
Since rights are socially determined, the default position would be that all natural resources are of the common stock unless there is a specific social contract stating otherwise. (And of course, this social contract wouldn't necessarily extend to people outside of the contract.)

Well, homesteading was originally considered to be a method where private property was pulled from common stock.

I find really no merit to assume that undiscovered or unclaimed potential goods are owned in common. It seems much more reasonable to assume that they not owned at all. That would seem to me to be the "default" status of a good, and from there it is all a matter of who defends property and how he defends it.

Well, homesteading was originally considered to be a method where private property was pulled from common stock.

I find really no merit to assume that undiscovered or unclaimed potential goods are owned in common. It seems much more reasonable to assume that they not owned at all. That would seem to me to be the "default" status of a good, and from there it is all a matter of who defends property and how he defends it.

Just like I said; delusion, mixed with an overweening sense of entitlement. Thanks for illustrating it for me.

If you actually read anything, you'd know Marx specifically says in the Manifesto he posits the abolition of upper class excess production property, not the institution of property, for a good look at democratic socialist thought, have a look at these:
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html

Nobody has adequately responded to this valid statement. Must be true.It would depend on the particular communist society.
Not all property in a communist society is inherently communal.

Well, homesteading was originally considered to be a method where private property was pulled from common stock.You could make that argument, but I would say that in most cases, the social contract has expired or was thrown out for whatever reason.

I find really no merit to assume that undiscovered or unclaimed potential goods are owned in common. It seems much more reasonable to assume that they not owned at all. That would seem to me to be the "default" status of a good, and from there it is all a matter of who defends property and how he defends it.If the default position is that goods are communally owned/controlled, there isn't any reason for the community to claim them. Of course, this begs the question of whether or not goods are community owned.
With that said, simply because an individual has made a claim and is defending it with weapons, doesn't mean that the individual has the right to whatever it is s/he is defending.

Well, homesteading was originally considered to be a method where private property was pulled from common stock.

I find really no merit to assume that undiscovered or unclaimed potential goods are owned in common. It seems much more reasonable to assume that they not owned at all. That would seem to me to be the "default" status of a good, and from there it is all a matter of who defends property and how he defends it.

Aye, to say that undiscovered land is owned by all is mere delusion, mixed with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

I would define rights as being something socially determined. The reason for this is because a right isn't a right unless you have other people protecting it for you - it would merely be an ability.
Since rights are socially determined, the default position would be that all natural resources are of the common stock unless there is a specific social contract stating otherwise. (And of course, this social contract wouldn't necessarily extend to people outside of the contract.)

The question of social rights vs natural rights is centuries old. I would be inclined to agree with certain rights being natural rights - some even argue that animals have rights - which if true would have to exist without any sort of mutual contract.

The rights to property I would include as a natural right. I believe it has evolved from a primeval territorial nature. Like territory - property rights are only as strong as your ability to defend it - as many nations (and their citizens) have discovered over the centuries.

I would bet that one of the first steps towards civilization was the banding together of people to defend (and acquire) territory - which began having substantially more value soon after the development of agriculture.

Just like I said; delusion, mixed with an overweening sense of entitlement. Thanks for illustrating it for me.

I posit that that is how property is created. Do you have any reason to dispute it?

You could make that argument, but I would say that in most cases, the social contract has expired or was thrown out for whatever reason.

I couldn't, but Locke did.

With that said, simply because an individual has made a claim and is defending it with weapons, doesn't mean that the individual has the right to whatever it is s/he is defending.

I am operating from the factual side of this, not the moral side of this.

In the end, all property is decided by the defense of the claim, whether that be state provided or private.

The question of social rights vs natural rights is centuries old. I would be inclined to agree with certain rights being natural rights - some even argue that animals have rights - which if true would have to exist without any sort of mutual contract.

The rights to property I would include as a natural right. I believe it has evolved from a primevial territorial nature. Like territory - property rights are only as strong as your ability to defend it - as many nations (and their citizens) have discovered over the centuries. What would the difference between a natural right and a natural ability be?

I would bet that one of the first steps towards civilization was the banding together of people to defend (and acquire) territory - which began having substantially more value soon after the development of agriculture.This would be an example of a social contract. (i.e. Not natural rights.)

I am operating from the factual side of this, not the moral side of this.

In the end, all property is decided by the defense of the claim, whether that be state provided or private.If this is the case, then what is the difference between property and possessions?

Alright you crazy leftists, explain away private property.

Maybe it would help if you told us what you want explained specifically. I mean, what don't you understand? A cheeseburger is a burger with cheese, private property is property owned by an individual/family/company/etc. What do you want explained?

I posit that that is how property is created. Do you have any reason to dispute it?

Heavens, no; it's aaaaaall yours, honey. Every little bit of it. Quick, you better publish before someone else lays claim to it. :rolleyes:

Connotation :confused:If possession and property are essentially the same thing, then by your argument, wouldn't killing someone be a right if you can get away with it?

If this is the case, then what is the difference between property and possessions?

Connotation :confused:

Maybe it would help if you told us what you want explained specifically. I mean, what don't you understand? A cheeseburger is a burger with cheese, private property is property owned by an individual/family/company/etc. What do you want explained?

Show me why we should form our economic model without it.

Show me how we would form our economic model without it.

Show me why we should form our economic model without it.

Show me how we would form our economic model without it.

I don't think we should but. And stating that in the OP might have helped.

Heavens, no; it's aaaaaall yours, honey. Every little bit of it. Quick, you better publish before someone else lays claim to it. :rolleyes:

Great! Moving on....

If the only difference is connotation, then wouldn't it be correct for me to say that the individual making a claim and defending it is merely defending his possessions?

First off, let me rephrase: property, as a legal term, refers to a relationship between people, not person and thing. But I am not operating from that definition, when I say property I refer to that thing which the relationship concerns.

But yes, I believe the typical method of distinguishing between possession and property is specious.

First off, let me rephrase: property, as a legal term, refers to a relationship between people, not person and thing. But I am not operating from that definition, when I say property I refer to that thing which the relationship concerns.Well, what do you want us to say? That things don't exist?

But yes, I believe the typical method of distinguishing between possession and property is specious.It seems reasonable enough to me - to paraphrase you, property is a relationship between people, possession is a relationship between a person and a thing.

Well, what do you want us to say? That things don't exist?

I just wanted to distinguish. I assumed that when you said property you referred to the thing that is owned, but I didn't want to get blindsided.

It seems reasonable enough to me - to paraphrase you, property is a relationship between people, possession is a relationship between a person and a thing.

But when one defends property (the legal right) he at the same time defends something that he claims to be his possession. So you can't differentiate between the two.

I just wanted to distinguish. I assumed that when you said property you referred to the thing that is owned, but I didn't want to get blindsided.Ah, I see. No, I meant property with regard to property rights. Rights being relationships between people.

But when one defends property (the legal right) he at the same time defends something that he claims to be his possession. So you can't differentiate between the two.Yes, but if you defend your possessions, you aren't necessarily defending your legal property. That would be an example of affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Yes, but if you defend your possessions, you aren't necessarily defending your legal property. That would be an example of affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

In one's mind they are inseparable. I still claim the possession to be my property, even if society does not respect my claim.

In one's mind they are inseparable. I still claim the possession to be my property, even if society does not respect my claim.Well, if we're going to go the route that property is what a person can defend, then wouldn't society have a natural advantage, as they have the strength of numbers?

I find really no merit to assume that undiscovered or unclaimed potential goods are owned in common. It seems much more reasonable to assume that they not owned at all.

Yes. And what does "not owned at all" mean? Merely that it is not under anyone's exclusive control (public or private.)

As such, in a meaningful sense everything unclaimed is part of a common stock: everybody has access because nobody has the exclusive right of access (ownership).

In justifying ownership, therefore, not only must the legitimacy of the appropriator's use be asserted, but the legitimacy of his or her use to the exclusion of everyone else's.

Locke deals with this by arguing that property can only be appropriated from the common stock when "as much and as good" is left for others. Nozick convincingly modified this restriction by arguing instead that property can be appropriated as long as no one is left worse off after appropriation.

The problem is that neither really justify the fundamental mechanism of appropriation: the idea that by adding labor to something I can somehow make it mine, especially in the absolutist sense with which Nozick speaks of property rights. This problem is especially apparent when we consider appropriation according to other rules--"you can appropriate property, but only if you accept society's regulations on how to use it, and only with the restriction that it benefits the public good." Or, alternatively, "you can't appropriate property, but the community as a whole can appropriate property as long as it doesn't leave anyone worse off."

As long as these rules are public, I fail to see how they violate anyone's autonomy any more than private appropriation does... keeping in mind that restrictions on appropriation amount to restrictions on excluding everyone else from a certain good, not on the autonomy of the individual.

It would depend on the particular communist society.

Since I can't think of any communist who has advocated slavery, I'll have to disagree.

In any genuinely communist society, the means for control of other human beings--a category that could loosely be identified with "ownership"--are far fewer than in market societies.

Yes. And what does "not owned at all" mean? Merely that it is not under anyone's exclusive control (public or private.)

As such, in a meaningful sense everything unclaimed is part of a common stock: everybody has access because nobody has the exclusive right of access (ownership).

In justifying ownership, therefore, not only must the legitimacy of the appropriator's use be asserted, but the legitimacy of his or her use to the exclusion of everyone else's.

*snip*

As long as these rules are public, I fail to see how they violate anyone's autonomy any more than private appropriation does... keeping in mind that restrictions on appropriation amount to restrictions on excluding everyone else from a certain good, not on the autonomy of the individual.

Surely your calling unclaimed property commonly owned (it's nonsensical to consider ownership present in the absence of a will to own) is an ad hoc to justify the existence of common property after claims have been made?

It is entirely true that ownership is found in the conflict of wills towards property. When we make justifications for property we have to justify the exclusion (or perhaps find no justification against it). As has been stated in this thread, property is not simply use: one can use a good without property rights, he must simply hope that no other person makes a claim. Property is the obligation placed on the other not to interfere with the use (albeit with limitations on this obligation), and so property is exclusion.

This belongs in the other thread where I challenged propertarians, but I have issue with the non-aggression principle as it relates to property rights. The typical opinion is that property rights should be defended because aggression is to be resisted. This is misleading, however, as it is not a principle of non-aggression, not a principle of opposing initiatory violence, but a principle of just aggression versus unjust aggression, just initiation of violence versus unjust initiation of violence.

Use is not violence, exclusion is violence.

I snipped the middle portion because labor appropriation is bogus, and that is the problem. The appropriation must be justified if we are able to accept that the original owner of property is in fact the just initiator of violence.


You probably didn't expect that from me, but don't worry, I am just a nihilist and do not have any problem with property, only the moralizing that surrounds it.

Well, if we're going to go the route that property is what a person can defend, then wouldn't society have a natural advantage, as they have the strength of numbers?

What is society?

What is society?I was simply using society to mean the collection of people in a particular area, but I could change my post to say something like "wouldn't a large, armed gang have the advantage of being able to defend property over an individual?"

Since I can't think of any communist who has advocated slavery, I'll have to disagree.

In any genuinely communist society, the means for control of other human beings--a category that could loosely be identified with "ownership"--are far fewer than in market societies.Oh, I agree, no actual communist society would make it so a person's body is community property.

I was simply using society to mean the collection of people in a particular area, but I could change my post to say something like "wouldn't a large, armed gang have the advantage of being able to defend property over an individual?"

Yes.

It would depend on the particular communist society.
Not all property in a communist society is inherently communal.



Why does that not surprize me coming from the king of inconsistency? Would you like to debate what "is" is in this tread too?

An argument for communalism:

I find that the only universal moral principle that can be derived from reason alone is that what causes happiness is good and what causes suffering is bad. Everything else is based on the individual's perception of happiness and suffering. In a communitarian society, where everyone really does work according to his need and receives according to his need, suffering does not exist, and happiness progressively increases.

Private property is unnecesary because all wealth is derived from the community. Individuals do not--cannot--produce wealth on their own, as they derive their values when enable them to produce wealth from society. Therefore, private property is impossible.

The problem is that, as it is far easier to envision the individual consciousness than the collective consciousness, we see the illusion of wealth being derived from individuals, even though they derive their ability to produce wealth from an abundance of psychic interactions which almost everyone agrees are not quantifiable, cannot be defined by conventions of value. Some visible examples would be strong parenting, exposure to the value of personal philosophy, etc. In the end, all wealth is nothing but the result of social interaction, therefore the property of the community as a whole.

Of course, all of this is assuming utopian conditions. I wish communalism were practical in the real world, but I think it will take a few more centuries of human maturation before it could be implemented on a large scale. Of course, it can easily be implemented on a small scale--the conventional human family is a perfect example.

Sorry for the extremely loose phrasing, I might try to elaborate on this later.

Yes.So then if property is defined by one's ability and willingness to protect it, then property would tend to be the product of a group's efforts as opposed to an individual's.
Thus tilting property rights towards the realm of society as opposed to the individual.

Why does that not surprize me coming from the king of inconsistency? Would you like to debate what "is" is in this tread too?Would you like to drop the ad hominems and put forth an argument with substance?

Great! Moving on....
You've been refuted! Give it up. :D

So then if property is defined by one's ability and willingness to protect it, then property would tend to be the product of a group's efforts as opposed to an individual's.
Thus tilting property rights towards the realm of society as opposed to the individual.

No, thus tilting the distribution of property rights to the realm of society, as the market will begin to determine how property is distributed.

An individual can still own property, he simply must "pay" for it to be defended.

You've been refuted! Give it up. :D

I am about to give it up because the post that summarizes my view on political economy at this point went completely untouched.

I know that no one agrees with it, so....

No, thus tilting the distribution of property rights to the realm of society, as the market will begin to determine how property is distributed.

An individual can still own property, he simply must "pay" for it to be defended.I agree with this, except for the part about the market. Society isn't necessarily going to use a market to make its determinations.

It;s unfair, but effective and almost everyone in a position to change things has at least a bit. It's not going anywhere.

I agree with this, except for the part about the market. Society isn't necessarily going to use a market to make its determinations.

Oh yes, the state could outweigh the market.

I am just under the opinion that society, conducting itself under these natural resolutions of property is far better than one that operates itself under a state.

I am just under the opinion that society, conducting itself under these natural resolutions of property is far better than one that operates itself under a state.

There is no difference.

States are the product of "voluntary" action in exactly the same sense.

There is no difference.

States are the product of "voluntary" action in exactly the same sense.

No, the state is the moral undermining of the society which I support.

I do not need the state, you do not need the state, no one needs the state except those who can only sustain their lifestyle through falsehoods.

I can see that the state could arise from a society of this natural form, but I see no reason for anyone to accept it, and the state is only possible through acceptance.

Oh yes, the state could outweigh the market.

I am just under the opinion that society, conducting itself under these natural resolutions of property is far better than one that operates itself under a state.I'm not convinced that the market would necessarily occur in the absence of a state, especially since we're talking about a situation where society is sufficiently organized that it can protect property rights.

OMG what nonsense! "Organized Society' and 'no state' are polar opposites. Your entire discussion is an oxymoron.

OMG what nonsense! "Organized Society' and 'no state' are polar opposites. Your entire discussion is an oxymoron.No, they are not. A state is an organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."
Simply because society is organized does not mean it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

No, they are not. A state is an organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."
Simply because society is organized does not mean it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

That is a very simplistic definition of state. Did you make it up yourself? It is full of all sorts of terms that could be debated and certainly far from thorough.

Stateless and civilization are mutually exclusive. There is no example of a civilization spontaniously existing without a state. Anyplace where there is no developed state rapidly descends into barbarism.

It is not a difficult reality to observe unless you choose to be willfully blind to it. Prentending and wishing will never change reality no matter how hard you cross your fingers. It is funny to watch though and makes for great entertainment! Keep it up!

That is a very simplistic definition of state. Did you make it up yourself? It is full of all sorts of terms that could be debated and certainly far from thorough. No, Max Weber made it up, and it is the generally used definition.

Stateless and civilization are mutually exclusive. There is no example of a civilization spontaniously existing without a state. Anyplace where there is no developed state rapidly descends into barbarism.

It is not a difficult reality to observe unless you choose to be willfully blind to it. Prentending and wishing will never change reality no matter how hard you cross your fingers. It is funny to watch though and makes for great entertainment! Keep it up!Define "civilization" and "barbarism".

I'm not convinced that the market would necessarily occur in the absence of a state, especially since we're talking about a situation where society is sufficiently organized that it can protect property rights.

The market exists without the state; it arises from the same process from which property arises.

OMG what nonsense! "Organized Society' and 'no state' are polar opposites. Your entire discussion is an oxymoron.

Well, it appeared that Jello Biafra concluded that society requires a state to be organized, at least well enough to possess property rights, while I completely disagree.

I am pretty sure you understand the market.

Is the market self-normalizing?

Stateless and civilization are mutually exclusive. There is no example of a civilization spontaniously existing without a state. Anyplace where there is no developed state rapidly descends into barbarism.


I am also pretty sure that you are an anthropologist, so perhaps you can show me how a state preexisted civilization?

The market exists without the state; it arises from the same process from which property arises.Didn't we agree that "the distribution of property rights [was tilted] to the realm of society, as the market will begin to determine how property is distributed. An individual can still own property, he simply must "pay" for it to be defended?" In other words, society distributes property rights, therefore it would also distribute property itself, in most cases.

Well, it appeared that Jello Biafra concluded that society requires a state to be organized, at least well enough to possess property rights, while I completely disagree.Not at all. That's not what I was saying. A society can be organized enough to protect property rights without being a state. (The disagreement was that Mystical Skeptic disagreed with this statement.)

Didn't we agree that "the distribution of property rights [was tilted] to the realm of society, as the market will begin to determine how property is distributed. An individual can still own property, he simply must "pay" for it to be defended?" In other words, society distributes property rights, therefore it would also distribute property itself, in most cases.

Certainly, but that is an endorsement of the market, not the state.

A society can be organized enough to protect property rights without being a state.

...What is it, then?

Certainly, but that is an endorsement of the market, not the state.I'm not trying to endorse either.

...What is it, then?A step up from a neighborhood watch?

A step up from a neighborhood watch?

...There's some sort of line between state/not-state?

...There's some sort of line between state/not-state?

The state is the coercion to the norm, the non-state is the confluence of the norm.

I'm not trying to endorse either.

I doubt that, if I understand prior arguments, but that is beside the point.

I simply don't know what your point was when you brought that statement up.

The state is the coercion to the norm, the non-state is the confluence of the norm.

The conflooey? Sounds like some kinda motto, you're going to have to elaborate a bit.

The conflooey? Sounds like some kinda motto, you're going to have to elaborate a bit.

Too lazy to type define: confluence on your google toolbar ?

Too lazy to type define: confluence on your google toolbar ?

He's only given me half the picture. What are the two or more things that confloo into the norm? Or alternatively, what is it that the norm and something else are conflooing into? To be honest, it sounds like some kind of soundbyte metaphor that quickly reaffirms the points of an ideology without truly explaining them.

I simply don't know what your point was when you brought that statement up.The point was that society can decide how to distribute property rights without being either a state or using the market to make their determination.

No, Max Weber made it up, and it is the generally used definition.
Define "civilization" and "barbarism".
Gee - would you like me to define in in as simple and snarky terms as your thoroughly inadequate attempt which you blamed on Mad Max? If you really need me to define the difference between civilization and barbarism then I don't see much point in engaging you in any meaningful discussion. The difference between the Ancient Greeks and the Cave Man then I'm afraid you've watched too many Geico commericals.


Is the market self-normalizing?
In the context of this conversation - who cares?


I am also pretty sure that you are an anthropologist, so perhaps you can show me how a state preexisted civilization?
You are exactly right. You cannot have one without the other. That was my point - thanks for affirming it.

The conflooey? Sounds like some kinda motto, you're going to have to elaborate a bit.

Society exists where there are certain norms that are followed, certain rules of interaction that keep it from imploding. Without said organization and rules of interaction people would rather just do without.

So when we determine how these rules are created, we come to the dichotomy I used in my "motto". There is first the state, under which the traditional powers that be or an external conquering force compels the individuals that compose the respective society. It is rarely of equal benefit for those ruled and those ruling, rather it is almost always the greatest benefit that the ruling class can gain at the expense of the governed class (but they can still force it through economic pyramid schemes, social casting, and moralizing, I do not understand how rule can be so easily accepted!). In the end the political and social norms are determined by the higher ruling classes and society is coerced into following them.

Without the state, there isn't necessarily a chaotic Hobbesian state of nature. There can be order brought about naturally through the interaction of self-motivated individuals. This order is not prescribed, it is not enacted from the book of some visionary: What order stems from anarchy stems from the very values of the individual actors within it.

In brief, the state is conformity and tradition, while anarchy is creativity and freedom.

In the context of this conversation - who cares?

You are exactly right. You cannot have one without the other. That was my point - thanks for affirming it.

Your ambivalence to the normalization of the market is why you cannot grasp the nonexistence of the state.

If the market has a tendency towards order, even if all the values of participants are subjective and disorderly, why in the world would you assume that a society must have a state to institute order?

The point was that society can decide how to distribute property rights without being either a state or using the market to make their determination.

I disagree.

Your ambivalence to the normalization of the market is why you cannot grasp the nonexistence of the state.

If the market has a tendency towards order, even if all the values of participants are subjective and disorderly, why in the world would you assume that a society must have a state to institute order?

A market is no more a replacement for a state than a university. They are not related or even similar. Your attempt to draw a direct correlation is invalid.

A market is no more a replacement for a state than a university. They are not related or even similar. Your attempt to draw a direct correlation is invalid.

One truth and two nonsequitors.

One truth and two nonsequitors.

Nope. But nice try. They are all statements of fact which you cannot refute. You should not beat yourself up for not being able to refute fact - it is impractical to expect that from yourself.

Nope. But nice try. They are all statements of fact which you cannot refute. You should not beat yourself up for not being able to refute fact - it is impractical to expect that from yourself.

Is this what you do?

1. Make false statement.
2. When someone posts that your statement was false, cease the line of argument and attack the poster.

Since I get drawn into arguments that are entirely pointless, I will start over again:

A market is no more a replacement for a state than a university.

I never said that the market is a replacement for the state. Indeed the market preexists the state, with the state being a counteraction to the market, so it is not anywhere near correct to say that the market is a replacement for the state.

With that said, I imagine that you are implying that the state provides some vital service to civilization or society that the market simply can't provide. If this is so, what service might that be?

They are not related or even similar.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything, nor how you can even say that the market and state are not related. All state activity is market alteration.

Your attempt to draw a direct correlation is invalid.

I have never attempted to draw a correlation, I have only posited that the state is not necessary, and since it is not necessary we should not allow ourselves to shoulder it.

If you want to actually show why the state is necessary instead of making unfounded statements, do so and cease with the smarmy comments.

Gee - would you like me to define in in as simple and snarky terms as your thoroughly inadequate attempt which you blamed on Mad Max?If the definition I used was insufficient, then why not explain what Max Weber's definition really is?

The difference between the Ancient Greeks and the Cave Man then I'm afraid you've watched too many Geico commericals.Shall I look the terms up in a dictionary and pick the definitions that best suit my argument, or will you give me the definitions that you meant to use when you made the argument in the first place?

I disagree.Fair enough. Perhaps we will need to agree to disagree. :)

Is this what you do?

1. Make false statement.
2. When someone posts that your statement was false, cease the line of argument and attack the poster.

I did not attack you. You said "One truth and two nonsequitors." which was a completely unsupported statement with no real meaning. I simply called you on it. Please don't consider that an attack. Consider it a reply in kind.


Since I get drawn into arguments that are entirely pointless, I will start over again:
I never said that the market is a replacement for the state. Indeed the market preexists the state, with the state being a counteraction to the market, so it is not anywhere near correct to say that the market is a replacement for the state.

With that said, I imagine that you are implying that the state provides some vital service to civilization or society that the market simply can't provide. If this is so, what service might that be?

I am not sure what this has to do with anything, nor how you can even say that the market and state are not related. All state activity is market alteration.

I have never attempted to draw a correlation, I have only posited that the state is not necessary, and since it is not necessary we should not allow ourselves to shoulder it.

If you want to actually show why the state is necessary instead of making unfounded statements, do so and cease with the smarmy comments.

If you expect more than 'unfounded statements' then you will make more posts just as thoughtful as this one is. I will not respond to any of your 'unfounded statement' with anything more than a challenge to you to make a real statement pertinent to this conversation - which you have just done. You may find my challenges 'unfounded' but only because they are a response to you own unfounded statements insisting on you providing justification. Thank you for doing so.

It was you who brought out the concemt of a self-normalizing market. You suggested then and now that this is ample evidence that because the market is self-normalizing there is no need for a state. In many regards that is a just statement - but it is not completely correct so it fails as a universal statement.

I would agree that most government meddling in the free market is unneccesary and often can have harmful concenquences. Not all government market decisions are bad, however. The SEC requires that companies in the US disclose their financies to shareholders more thoroughly trhan anywhere else in the world. The federal reserve creates a common currency for the purpose of exchange and trade. They also have a monetary policy outside of political influence (mostly) which has been reasonably successful of balancing what otherwise would be uncomfortable market (economical) swings.

I would disagree that the sole purpose of a state is a counteraction to the market. A state crate an environment where a market can exist (among many other things - not all of which we both would agree are necessary). Without a state to enforce certain rights and provide certain tools the 'market' would never have become any more sophisticated than the barter system at best.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I did not attack you. You said "One truth and two nonsequitors." which was a completely unsupported statement with no real meaning. I simply called you on it. Please don't consider that an attack. Consider it a reply in kind.

I misread your post (or at least read what I was expecting), I thought you had stated that it would be impractical for me to expect myself to refute you and not fact. My apologies.

I would agree that most government meddling in the free market is unneccesary and often can have harmful concenquences. Not all government market decisions are bad, however. The SEC requires that companies in the US disclose their financies to shareholders more thoroughly trhan anywhere else in the world. The federal reserve creates a common currency for the purpose of exchange and trade. They also have a monetary policy outside of political influence (mostly) which has been reasonably successful of balancing what otherwise would be uncomfortable market (economical) swings.

I have no doubt that, if the SEC were to just cease its functioning we would have a financial disaster. However, I think this would be caused by the way in which the SEC has completely undermined competition amongst investments. If we view investment fraud from the view of a normalizing market, what happens when a company is caught in an ethics scandal or industries in general became known for screwing over investors, investment plummets, the market shrinks, and investors are extremely suspicious. In order to vie for funding companies must adopt policies of openness to bridge disinformation, offer higher returns, and establish a high degree of trustworthiness.

That is the normalizing effect, the market tends towards an equilibrium. The market, through the actions and varied values of its actors, organizes itself to produce social norms of interaction that reflect the values of society.

I would disagree that the sole purpose of a state is a counteraction to the market. A state crate an environment where a market can exist (among many other things - not all of which we both would agree are necessary). Without a state to enforce certain rights and provide certain tools the 'market' would never have become any more sophisticated than the barter system at best.

All that is necessary for a market is a collection of interacting wills. If that exists, "property" will arise, exchange will arise, order will arise, a free market will arise. If the state truly facilitates a market, it is only that market that the state wants, not a truly free market.

I have no doubt that, if the SEC were to just cease its functioning we would have a financial disaster. However, I think this would be caused by the way in which the SEC has completely undermined competition amongst investments. If we view investment fraud from the view of a normalizing market, what happens when a company is caught in an ethics scandal or industries in general became known for screwing over investors, investment plummets, the market shrinks, and investors are extremely suspicious. In order to vie for funding companies must adopt policies of openness to bridge disinformation, offer higher returns, and establish a high degree of trustworthiness.

That is the normalizing effect, the market tends towards an equilibrium. The market, through the actions and varied values of its actors, organizes itself to produce social norms of interaction that reflect the values of society.

All that is necessary for a market is a collection of interacting wills. If that exists, "property" will arise, exchange will arise, order will arise, a free market will arise. If the state truly facilitates a market, it is only that market that the state wants, not a truly free market.

I would disagree and it is a testable and proovable hypothesis. Alll one must do is look at markets where transparency is not as strictly enforced to see what the results are. I will call up Japan. They have been stuck in a financial quagmire for decades due in large part to their obsfucation of corporate malfeance. Their market has not 'self-normalized' to correct this. The correction must be provided through governance - their market certainly has failed to provide this.

I would disagree and it is a testable and proovable hypothesis. Alll one must do is look at markets where transparency is not as strictly enforced to see what the results are. I will call up Japan. They have been stuck in a financial quaqmire for decades due in large part to their obsfucation of corporate malfeance. Their market has not 'self-normalized' to correct this. The correction must be provided through governance - their market certainly has failed to provide this.

I have no knowledge of the Japanese financial situation, perhaps you could provide a source?

In the end the political and social norms are determined by the higher ruling classes and society is coerced into following them.

What order stems from anarchy stems from the very values of the individual actors within it.


So everybody is the state then? Or do they not count as a state if they aren't bullying someone else?

I have no knowledge of the Japanese financial situation, perhaps you could provide a source?

There are countless. You could look at the annual reports of mutual funds which specialize in Japan. You also could look up Jaapnese market reform. It would not be hard to find much about it. Considering they are one of the largest capitalist economies I am surprized you are unfamiliar with this.

So everybody is the state then?

To me that is nonsensical.