The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument

[Mageant]

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?

Well, look at history of the past 3000 years. This is exactly how it worked. You can "pay" for your conquest through the plunder you acquire.

You can indoctrinate people with religion, for example, or certain ideologies, like Communism or Fascism.

If you really have a strong army other people will have to submit to you. Also, if you are not entirely cruel and let people live under your "rule", then they might willingly submit to you or even help you. Also, you can always spread lies and rumors and make other groups seem to be worse enemies.

[1714027119]

1714027119

[Mageant]

What I'm trying to say is that IMHO if violence or threat of violence in any form is acceptable then an anarcho-capitalist society is not going to work, or rather it will work but it will eventually end up in the situation we have today. That namely through competition the most successful group at using and consolidating force will eventually take over everything (and call itself "government" to justify itself).

Since the only way to "defend" unused property though is through violence or threat of violence (because many people want property) then property rights (beyond what you actually use for yourself) are not going to work.

[myrkul]

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?

Well, look at history of the past 3000 years. This is exactly how it worked. You can "pay" for your conquest through the plunder you acquire.

You can indoctrinate people with religion, for example, or certain ideologies, like Communism or Fascism.

If you really have a strong army other people will have to submit to you. Also, if you are not entirely cruel and let people live under your "rule", then they might willingly submit to you or even help you. Also, you can always spread lies and rumors and make other groups seem to be worse enemies.

1: You won't be making any money while you're raising the kids. that's a 16-18 year investment in what, 3 to 400 kids?  Whoo. You must be mighty rich.

2: Indoctrination doesn't happen overnight, Chief, you gotta get 'em young, before they start thinking for themselves.

3: Just exactly how strong an army can you afford? Remember, you've got to raise them on your own dime, since you can't have any plunder until you have an army.

4: How are you, by definition a monopoly, going to provide better services than the Market already does for these people? Do you honestly believe that propaganda is going to work in AnCapistan?

[myrkul]

Since the only way to "defend" unused property though is through violence or threat of violence (because many people want property) then property rights (beyond what you actually use for yourself) are not going to work.

Since the only way to "defend" yourself against rape is by violence or threat of violence, Any form of sexual discretion is not going to work.

[Babylon]

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.

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed?  Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

[billyjoeallen]

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.

There is no way of knowing how "extensive" the property rights would become in any given AnCap society, but because the founding principle of the society in the Non-Agression Axiom, the violence would likely be relatively less.   It's quite possible that Use would be a major factor if not the primary factor in determining ownership. I would be ok with that.

[Mageant]

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed?  Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

That is my point. If force is acceptable (in anything else than self-defense) then we would basically end up in some situation similiar to what we have today.

I support an anarchist system and it seems to me property rights would most likely be limited to what you can actually use personally. I don't see people accepting somebody owning land or buildings they practically never use. At least that is my sentiment and that's what I see from movements such as squatters. Though I agree it's hard to say what people would agree on.

But I also think this point will probably become moot after the 2012 event with the raising of consciousness. Violence and lieing will simply not be possible (or very, very limited).

[Babylon]

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed?  Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

That is my point. If force is acceptable (in anything else than self-defense) then we would basically end up in some situation similiar to what we have today.

I support an anarchist system and it seems to me property rights would most likely be limited to what you can actually use personally. I don't see people accepting somebody owning land or buildings they practically never use. At least that is my sentinment and that's what I see from movements such as squatters. Though I agree it's hard to say what people would agree on.

Of course I also think this point will probably become moot after the 2012 event with the raising of consciousness. Violence and lieing will simply not be possible.

I suspect I might be with you then.

I'm an Anarcho-Socialist so i don't believe in extensive property rights.