Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:21:35 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument  (Read 9651 times)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 06:14:39 PM
 #101

I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?

In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?

I would also add that emergent standards arise concerning what exactly constitutes "abandoned" property. There is a body of common law on this already, which varies somewhat depending on where you are.  Bottom line is that the PRIMARY enforcers of property rights are the property owners themselves. Custom, common law, social pressure, third party dispute arbitrators all contribute to the enforcement and interpretation of property rights.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
1481340096
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340096

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340096
Reply with quote  #2

1481340096
Report to moderator
1481340096
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340096

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340096
Reply with quote  #2

1481340096
Report to moderator
1481340096
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340096

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340096
Reply with quote  #2

1481340096
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481340096
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340096

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340096
Reply with quote  #2

1481340096
Report to moderator
1481340096
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481340096

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481340096
Reply with quote  #2

1481340096
Report to moderator
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:30:38 PM
 #102

"Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included."

when I steal it's theft. When government steals, it's taxation

when I kidnap, it's a felony. When the State kidnaps, it's an arrest

when I force people to work for me, it's slavery. When the State does it, it's the Draft, selective service, conscription, whatever.

The state doesn't obey the same rules at all. it breaks the rules and gives it's violations different names.



hahhahaha

Taxation isn't stealing, it's written into the law and thus part of the contract.

Arrests are kidnapping, their parameters are written into the law and thus part of the contract.

Selective service is written into the law and military members are paid, therefore it is part of the contract and not slavery.


YOU defined those things on your own terms.  The terms of the contract define them as such.

It's really cute how you completely ignore the fact that the relationship between the State and it's citizen is totally unilateral. Troll elsewhere.


What's cuter is that you ignore the fact that people have a hand in government (that's what a democracy is), so they if they care enough they can tailor the contract any way they see fit.  If they're unable to do that, they can GTFO at any time.

What's the cutest is that you sit here and bemoan the evil government all day, while enjoying all its benefits.

'Democracy', lol. Let me know when you finish your high school civics class.

Keeping with the consistency of statism, you're right, I enjoy the 'benefits' of Government, like out of control cops, horribly maintained roads/infrastructure, and I'm given no other choices, because these services are forced on me, at gunpoint. Since you hate corporations so much, why are you so willing to type on a computer manufactured with parts made by evil corporations, using software developed by mega-corporations like Microsoft, and sending your posts out through internet owned and operated by a private corporation? Because you do these things, that means you can't hate corporations, because you use their products!

Nice argument, bro. How's High School treating you?

He's in favor of government, but against the corporations?

Stalinist much?

That way lies State Capitalism, which is even worse than the Corporatist system we currently have.

States and corporations are basically the same thing.

Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:38:05 PM
 #103

I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?

In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?

You need to quantify 'unused'

If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it.

 A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

 A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.

Sounds like government.

Property is impossible.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 06:45:04 PM
 #104

States and corporations are basically the same thing.

Not even 'basically'. There's no need to qualify it:
cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/Noun
1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
2. A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 06:56:30 PM
 #105

A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.

Sounds like government.

Property is impossible.
[/quote]

How does that sound like government?

I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.

I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.

Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?

FYI: without property, society is impossible.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 07:18:43 PM
 #106

A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.

Sounds like government.

Property is impossible.

How does that sound like government?

I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.

I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.

Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?

FYI: without property, society is impossible.
[/quote]

Standards would be developed, and enforced via arbitration.  Or presumably there would be some sort of enforcement, since without an enforcement mechanism arbitration is kind of useless.

Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 07:37:19 PM
 #107

A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 07:44:48 PM
 #108

The State is a corporation that enjoys a monopoly on legal initiatory violence and is the final arbiter of disputes, including disputes with itself. This is the definition of the State. Without such properties, the corporation is not a State. Society needs no such corporation, and in fact is harmed by such a corporation, although it needs rules.
A society that recognizes property rights, but not the legitimacy of a governance monopoly (State) is properly called "anarcho-capitalist". 

A corporation that provides the services currently supplied by the State, but that did not enjoy monopoly and final arbiter status would not be a State. "Essential services" would still be provided, and provided more efficiently and most important VOLUNTARILY. 

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
 #109

A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

What you want and what you can reasonably expect are two entirely different things. We can't eliminate violence in society, unfortunately. We can only work to minimize it.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 07:58:19 PM
 #110

What you want and what you can reasonably expect are two entirely different things. We can't eliminate violence in society, unfortunately. We can only work to minimize it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't envision a peaceful society with "extensive" property rights.

What I mean with "extensive" property rights is that a person can own any amount of land beyond what they make immediate use of themself. It seems to me to have property rights beyond what you actually can use yourself you need force in some form.

People are going to want to have some land for themselves. Just look at how many squatters and land disputes there are today even with a State. The desire for people to have some land for themselves is not going to away just because the State disappears.

Also, this notion of property is relatively western & modern. Remember that American natives did not have this concept of land property.
So my preference would be to have no extensive property rights and thereby a more peaceful society.

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
 #111

Standards would be developed, and enforced via arbitration.  Or presumably there would be some sort of enforcement, since without an enforcement mechanism arbitration is kind of useless.

Most 'enforcement' in AnCap society is economic. With force not a legitimate option, a person who refuses arbitration or refuses to abide by the result of the arbitration (unlikely, since he agreed to that result) would find himself outside of society. No one would trade with him, no one would work with him, and no one would offer him a job.

Worse, no arbitration firm or mediation group would contract with him, so he would be 'out in the cold' when it comes to dispute resolution... the original meaning of outlaw. Since learning this information would be part of growing up in the society, everyone would know it, so very few would refuse arbitration or fail to keep their end of the bargain.

Obviously, this is an extreme case. First time 'offenders' might still be able to find people to work with them, albeit at higher rates, with stricter contract requirements, more supervision, or payment required up front. Basically, Life, for the known - for lack of a better word - 'cheater', sucks.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:08:55 PM
 #112

A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
 #113

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

So the biggest, most organized group with the most guns gets the most land. You could name that group "Government".

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:30:57 PM
 #114

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

This still sounds like "Might makes Right" to me. Not much different that what we already have today.
What if a person with armed guards takes over a previously unclaimed piece of property?
What if they take over the property of a somebody who has gone away for a few days?

No, it's really quite different from what we have today. Today, those 'armed guards' are paid for by forcing people to give them money. That's not at all what this is.

Previously unclaimed property is previously unclaimed. Now it's not unclaimed, he claimed it. Same as if someone without the guards just up and moved in.

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:36:12 PM
 #115

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

They could lie to the arbitration court and say that the previous owner sold it to them, or they could simply kill the previous owner and bury his body without trace.

The point is that any organization with sufficient resources to lie, cheat, steal or kill sucessfully could assert themselves if people generally recognized that some people have right to a lot more land than other people. It took many centuries, but IMHO that's exactly how we got into this situation today.

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:44:22 PM
 #116

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

They could lie to the arbitration court and say that the previous owner sold it to them, or they could simply kill the previous owner and bury his body without trace.

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:46:33 PM
 #117

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.
Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.
You could present a forged document, or you could bribe the arbritation court. So many possibilities for the really creative evil person.

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'
Then you kill any investigator who comes too close to the truth.

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 08:59:12 PM
 #118

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

My point is, that yes, violence is one way to do things, but it is not the most efficient way. Once you've forcefully evicted someone, you then have to defend yourself against their counter-attack, not to mention the possibility of losses in the initial assault. Keep in mind that your armed guards aren't soldiers, they're just people looking for a paycheck, and there are better ways of earning your paycheck than taking over people's houses.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1082



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
 #119

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

My point is, that yes, violence is one way to do things, but it is not the most efficient way. Once you've forcefully evicted someone, you then have to defend yourself against their counter-attack, not to mention the possibility of losses in the initial assault. Keep in mind that your armed guards aren't soldiers, they're just people looking for a paycheck, and there are better ways of earning your paycheck than taking over people's houses.
Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing it for their paycheck. But of course you only start taking over the land of the weakest people first. Also you offer "peace" to anyone who submits to you voluntarily. Anyone who dares to counter-attack you threaten with with extreme retaliation (or perhaps cut a deal with them). Once you have "conquered" a large enough territory you declare yourself "king".

  ►  NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT  ◄ 
  100% built from scratch • revolutionary forging mechanism • fairly distributed

BIETCOIN.DE - Kleinanzeigenmarkt für Bitcoin
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 09:15:09 PM
 #120

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing for their paycheck.

And where would this indoctrination come from? You going to be raising your own army from kids?

I guess it's possible, horrendously expensive, especially on your own dime, but possible. But what happens when you start storming houses, and losing troops? What happens when the other members of your society notice that you've gone and raised an army, and are now using it for conquest?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!