NationStates Jolt Archive

Vittos, how would an anarchist society resolve conflicts when different anarchists believe in different property rights? Ed "owns" some land but doesn't use it. Ted thinks only land that used can be owned so he takes over the property to his use. Ed finds out and tries to force Ted of the land while Ted fights back. How is the conflict resolved when both sides believes the other side is the one using coercion?

I do not wish to predict what forms of dispute resolution a freed market will take on, however, the costs of enforcing claims, the moral norms of a society or community, and the self-regulating tendencies of the market will lead to a sort of customary law that will tend towards tort resolution, as people will not be likely to maintain the costs of punishing victimless crimes.

Between these two individuals, it will likely be mediated and settled in a manner similar to those settled out of court today.

EDIT: In the end, anarchy is a call for people to abide by their own better natures, but I think market anarchism has the bonus of being representative of what society materially and naturally will tend towards.

I started reading the blogs you linked to and didn't see anything. Is there a particular blog I should look through that puts forward the argument you like best?

One that you will appreciate:

http://mutualist.org/id4.html

I have the authority over meSays who?

I am a Libertarian.

I do not support government interference into the natural process of things. Everything takes the course that it needs to take. If you support someone who cannot or will not do those things to ensure their own survival, then you are only supporting and perpetuating those behaviors. If you want a strong, independent, and responsible population, then you have to allow nature to take its course and eliminate the weak. Appeal to nature fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

One that you will appreciate:

http://mutualist.org/id4.htmlAh, thank you.

Way to ignore that post. If you really think African countries are "capitalist," you have a lot - I repeat, a lot - to learn about the continent.
I define capitalism as an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; in other words, decisions regarding the running of a workplace are made by a single individual or a limited number of owners (as opposed to the whole people of a country or the democratically elected representatives of the people).

In all African countries, decisions regarding workplaces are made by individual owners or groups of owners (shareholders). Therefore, Africa is capitalist. End of story. Whether those private owners happen to be corrupt or have ties with the government is beside the point. The definition of capitalism does not require business owners to behave in any specific way; it only requires them to exist.

Advocates of capitalism are dishonest when they try to wave away all the business owners and private property-based economies they don't like under the excuse that "they're not really capitalist". Likewise, of course, advocates of communism are dishonest when they try to wave away the Soviet Union.

I do not support government interference into the natural process of things.
Oh, wonderful! So I guess you don't want the government to interfere with people killing each other with rocks and spears and taking the other tribe's land and women, like it used to happen in natural (which is to say, hunter-gatherer) human society.

IIn all African countries, decisions regarding workplaces are made by individual owners or groups of owners (shareholders). Therefore, Africa is capitalist. End of story.

LOL

Oh, wonderful! So I guess you don't want the government to interfere with people killing each other with rocks and spears and taking the other tribe's land and women, like it used to happen in natural (which is to say, hunter-gatherer) human society.

I always love how people use the word "natural" as some nebulous term for "Shit I approve of" :p

In nature, do not most social animals work as a community and not as individuals? Sure there is a hierarchy where the strongest eats first and has their pick of a mate but it isn't completely selfish.

The difference is that members of animal groups in nature work together of their own free will. The individuals make that choice. In our society, government forces you to do those things that you would call, "work as a community."

Says who?

Appeal to nature fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Ah, thank you.


Says I, Jello.....and if there weren't so many power-hungry, greedy people in this world I wouldn't have to worry about anybody trying to usurp that authority

Says I, Jello.....and if there weren't so many power-hungry, greedy people in this world I wouldn't have to worry about anybody trying to usurp that authorityWhy should we take your word seriously?

The difference is that members of animal groups in nature work together of their own free will. The individuals make that choice. In our society, government forces you to do those things that you would call, "work as a community."

Bullshit. The entire concept of free will requires an entity to be intelligent and sentient enough to make their own choices. Non-human Animals are no more gifted with free will than trees and fungi are.

The concept of a community, and the concept of working together as a community has been around since considerably long before a government was ever established, anywhere.

You fail, both at understanding basic biology AND history.

Seriously, do they not teach you people this shit in Libertarian-Land?

Bullshit. The entire concept of free will requires an entity to be intelligent and sentient enough to make their own choices. Non-human Animals are no more gifted with free will than trees and fungi are.

The concept of a community, and the concept of working together as a community has been around since considerably long before a government was ever established, anywhere.

You fail, both at understanding basic biology AND history.

Seriously, do they not teach you people this shit in Libertarian-Land?

The difference being macro-micro cooperation and competition. We work well in small-ish groups, it's how we're hard wired. There are tasks that clearly require more than one person (I've only got two hands!) But, when we start dealing with large-scale society, that's when inefficiencies and problems begin to be seriously introduced to inhibit effective cooperation.

Too many chefs spoil the soup, after all.

The difference being macro-micro cooperation and competition. We work well in small-ish groups, it's how we're hard wired. There are tasks that clearly require more than one person (I've only got two hands!) But, when we start dealing with large-scale society, that's when inefficiencies and problems begin to be seriously introduced to inhibit effective cooperation.

Too many chefs spoil the soup, after all.

Agreed, but the basic premise that it is an external government that forces us to "work as a community" is a little laughable. We ARE a community, government or not. We have societies, government or not. Even in a state of total anarchy a society would still exist, whatever form it might take.

How big, how efficient, how useful that community/society may be is frankly irrelevant to that side of the discussion.

The implication that working as a community has to be discarded, or that government should stop fostering this "work[ing] as a community" is also a little laughable.

And while I acknowledge your point, you have to agree that the original statement said communities, with no mention of the scale or size of these communities.

Agreed, but the basic premise that it is an external government that forces us to "work as a community" is a little laughable. We ARE a community, government or not. We have societies, government or not. Even in a state of total anarchy a society would still exist, whatever form it might take.

How big, how efficient, how useful that community/society may be is frankly irrelevant to that side of the discussion.

The implication that working as a community has to be discarded, or that government should stop fostering this "work[ing] as a community" is also a little laughable.

And while I acknowledge your point, you have to agree that the original statement said communities, with no mention of the scale or size of these communities.

Quite, quite.

I oftentimes suspect that some people forget that Capitalism is predicated on the existence of the community, of sets of community rules and that there is a substantial degree of cooperation required for capitalism to function. But, that's a different debate for a different time.

Quite, quite.

I oftentimes suspect that some people forget that Capitalism is predicated on the existence of the community, of sets of community rules and that there is a substantial degree of cooperation required for capitalism to function. But, that's a different debate for a different time.

Which is doubtless the most amusing thing about the internet libertarians we see passing through NSG periodically. The myopic view that the destruction of all social structures in some way empowers the market, and that the "true purpose of government" of enforcing contract law and protecting property rights is in some way feasible in the advance of other government functions and services.

Why should we take your word seriously?


How you take it is your choice, I'm just letting you know the way of things. Why don't you contribute more instead of just asking open ended questions that often don't have anything significant to do with the topic?

i think the government should get there country to produce lots more things and earning more for the government for everyone in the country because if not how can we feed and give money to the poor so i will agree good thing i support the willing to give things to the poor it gives them a chance to be free and like us!.

How you take it is your choice, I'm just letting you know the way of things. Why don't you contribute more instead of just asking open ended questions that often don't have anything significant to do with the topic?You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. Don't get snippy when you're called on them.

One that you will appreciate:

http://mutualist.org/id4.html/snip

Okay, this seems to say that people in England lived in something of a mutualist society until they were conquered and some other system was imposed upon them. Do you agree with this?

Libertarianism is a fallacy that only the rich can afford to subscribe to.

Not everyone in life has the same advantages. It is quite acceptable for someone from the white middle class to sit back and complain about the poor, when the rate of social movement in the USA is one of the lowest in the world, compounded by a similarly low rate of social welfare spending. In the USA, people who have money keep it, people who don't don't get any either. Obviously there are exceptions, but they are that, exceptions.

To take away social welfare is to advocate mass starvation, followed by French revolution style rioting.

/snip

Okay, this seems to say that people in England lived in something of a mutualist society until they were conquered and some other system was imposed upon them. Do you agree with this?

I disagree with some parts of that article, but I agree that government has almost always been imposed by conquest, and that most modern "capitalist" (note that I don't use capitalism in the negative manner that Carson does, rather I treat it in the Rothbardian sense, and hold that what Carson and other left-anarchists refer to as capitalism is not really capitalism) are the result of massive violent property redistribution by said governments.

IF you could just go out and pitch your tent anywhere, or anywhere that wasn't too close to where someone else had already pitched their's, ant live off the land, and the land was protected from becoming un-live-off-of-able, THEN no one would owe you anything. but this is not the world most of us live in.

as long as there are governments telling you not to do that, stopping you from doing that with building codes and tearing down out of code shacks, whatever form those governments take or claim to, they owe all of us some form of justifactory compensation for their robbing us of any means of survival that does not involve robbing someone else or kissing the ass of little green pieces of paper.

the universe doesn't owe us this. our brothers and neighbors and other life forms don't owe us this. but the premeditated creation of formalized heirarchal socital constructs, otherwise known as governments, maintianed be imposing their will by force of arms, is the origen and ownership of such debt.

kinship groups banded togather to form villages to keep people from starving, freezing, or beating each other over the head. when villages grew to where they started having resource disputes between them, governments were formed to settle these and provide what infrastructure was neccessary to do so.

please note: all of this was for the peace, happiness, and well being of REAL PEOPLE. little green pieces of paper didn't have a damd thing to do with it, largely because it would still be several millinea before they would be invented.

so to claim governments, of any idiology or form, have any other reason to exist, besides welfare and infrastructure is utterly ludichris.

the problem with government spending, besides gratuitous wars, which governments have always aggreed with each other to start to keep their own people from realizing how unneccessary they were, other then what they contributed to welfare and infrastructure, is bailing out their corporate mafia buddies and then printing more paper to cover doing so.

oh and just as a btw, there IS no war ON terror. there is a war on opec, YOUR civil liberties, international law, and anything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, or try to stand up for their people and environment and protect them from the deprivations and wanton and careless exploitation by conscousless economic interests. at any rate, it isn't being waged by ben lauden, islam, the talliban, socialism, the russians, or anyone other then the executive branch of the american government and the corporate mafia which is its puppet masters.

it IS being waged by the USE of terrorism and torture.

it is a war to reestablish serfdom and absolute lawless and capritious dictatorial monarchy.

if it were only the loss and end of what pretense remains of personal freedom, that would be harmful enough, but the callous indifference of economic interests to environmental health and stability virtually insures the collective suicide of the human species, if not all of life on planet earth

=^^=
.../\...

For get more welfare just develop a european/ scandinavian welfare system.. Giving the poor a low but still usefull sum of money does not encourage them to stay poor and just take money from the system... on the contrary..

And free schools and health care.. In Denmark we pay 40% in taxes. It's alot but we have free education all the way from kindergarten to university, medical care and so on... If the US did copy just a little of the european wlefare model a would eat my own hat if crime and poverty did not fall dramaticly...

For get more welfare just develop a european/ scandinavian welfare system.. Giving the poor a low but still usefull sum of money does not encourage them to stay poor and just take money from the system... on the contrary..

And free schools and health care.. In Denmark we pay 40% in taxes. It's alot but we have free education all the way from kindergarten to university, medical care and so on... If the US did copy just a little of the european wlefare model a would eat my own hat if crime and poverty did not fall dramaticly...

i agree^ and im american... so put that in ya smipe and poke it.:)

I disagree with some parts of that article, but I agree that government has almost always been imposed by conquest, and that most modern "capitalist" (note that I don't use capitalism in the negative manner that Carson does, rather I treat it in the Rothbardian sense, and hold that what Carson and other left-anarchists refer to as capitalism is not really capitalism) are the result of massive violent property redistribution by said governments.I don't have a problem with that idea, but are governments the only forced capable of using force to redistribute property and institute capitalism?