Anarcho-capitalism and Government

[左]

But, you know, I think we have different priorities, in which case arguing is pretty pointless.

I think you are probably right.  I don't advocate a system where theft is acceptable based on someone's subjective opinion about how much capital an individual can "use".  You do, apparently.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Property is theft.

Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.

Have a nice day

[1714034718]

1714034718

[1714034718]

1714034718

[1714034718]

1714034718

[em3rgentOrdr]

Property is theft.

Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.

Have a nice day

Benjamin Tucker says that community sucks, and rejects "that there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny...I...maintain that ‘the community’ is a non-entity, that it has no existence..."

[左]

Tucker and I disagree on things! Shocker! (Also, where's that from? Also, Tucker had a strange phase before he died where he went all Stirnerite. I'm not sure I'd count anything he said from that phase as relevant to the conversation.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Tucker and I disagree on things! Shocker! (Also, where's that from? Also, Tucker had a strange phase before he died where he went all Stirnerite. I'm not sure I'd count anything he said from that phase as relevant to the conversation.

Tucker and George conversation: http://uncletaz.com/liberty/dialogue.html

[BitterTea]

Property is theft.

Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.

Have a nice day

I think the difference between "anarcho-capitalism" and "anarcho-socialism" (personally, I think both of those terms are meaningless, you cannot impose your will on anarchy) simplifies to a difference in the amount of time necessary for abandoned property to be considered unclaimed. Does this seem correct to you?

If anarchy is achieved, would you accept that some people (myself included) would prefer to live in a system resembling anarcho-capitalism? I accept that some prefer to to live in a system resembling anarcho-socialism.

[左]

No. Capitalism, to be capitalism, has to have a system or method of accumulating capital, which is an excess of resources beyond what can be used by an individual. The capitalist will then permit others to use those resources, in exchange for payment. This equates to rent, interest on loans, and not paying workers the full value of their labor. "Anarcho" capitalists like to pretend that you can have capitalism without a state, and that it would be a free society. (I disagree on both points.)

Other anarchists reject the entire notion of accumulating capital as it would bring about an unfree society (and, eventually a state like structure to protect the capitalists).
Other anarchists would also say that "anarcho" capitalism isn't anarchistic because to enforce "property" rights (in this case the right to own capital), is to impose "your will" on others.

Personally, I'm an anarchist without adjectives. I believe that the best system is on that promotes the maximum freedom (which I also believe will promote equality). I think that it would be wonderful if people could choose the economic system they live in. But realistically, I think that something resembling communism (stateless and classless communism) would end up producing most manufactured goods in an anarchist society. But, there would be nothing to stop you, or anyone else, from exchanging labor or products.

A market might well exist in an anarchist society, but it won't be a capitalist market.

[deadlizard]

No. Capitalism, to be capitalism, has to have a system or method of accumulating capital, which is an excess of resources beyond what can be used by an individual.

excess resources are not capital. if I harvest my entire crop and store it for winter I have accumulated an excess of resources but it's not capital. This is deferred consumption and is a perfectly legitimate form of wealth accumulation.
If I trade a portion of my crop for things I need "then" it's capital.

A market might well exist in an anarchist society, but it won't be a capitalist market.

No capital, no market 


I think the main problem is that anti capitalists think the owners of capital would control a capitalist system.
without the force of the state a capitalist society would be controlled entirely by the whims of the consumer and any capitalist who didn't fall in line would be out of business.

[The Script]

But, you know, I think we have different priorities, in which case arguing is pretty pointless.

I think you are probably right.  I don't advocate a system where theft is acceptable based on someone's subjective opinion about how much capital an individual can "use".  You do, apparently.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Property is theft.

Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.

Have a nice day

I understand where you are coming from when say "property is theft", but it still seems to be a logical contradiction to me.  I'd like to read up on "leftist" anarchism so I can fully understand where you are coming from.  You have repeatedly mentioned the anarchist FAQ and I will go take a look at that, but I was wondering if you can refer me to other readings on the traditional anarchist position.  Perhaps some of Proudhon's works or Tucker's?  Keep in mind that I have a lot of books on my reading list and limited time so if you refer me to some 1000 page magnum opus I will not likely be able to finish it.    Anyway, thank you for being willing to discuss these topics and being civil about it.  I appreciate it as it causes me to question my own opinions and their validity.  I don't ever want to get to the point where I blindly believe something and cannot defend it.

[左]

I strongly suggest that you attempt to read the bits of the "FAQ" (though it's obviously not a traditional FAQ, what with being so, large) that interest you. If you are a capitalist supporter, checkout the section and appendix on Capitalism.

Personally I'm a huge fan of Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman, both of whom were communist anarchists (though Malatesta was also 'without adjectives'). The trouble is, there is so much writing on anarchism out there, that I can't really select just a few notes and say it is representative.

However, here are some pieces that I like, though I doubt they will satisfy you (at least they are short):

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/note.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/towardsanarchy.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
http://praxeology.net/BT-WIA.htm (this one by Tucker, the reason I'm an anarchist is because I don't like anything else)
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1905.eng.html (by Kropotkin, written for the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica)
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm (Famous work from Bakunin, God and the State, his work On Authority is also worth a read)

More generally, for a variety of anarchist writers, there are numerous websites that collect writings, including: <http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/>
<http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives>
<http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm> (Though they are Marxists and have a typically Marxist objection to and misunderstanding of anarchism.)

Most of the above writings will not really address state-less capitalism, because it wasn't really existent until after WW2.

However, also check out RevLeft <http://revleft.com>, for a variety of "leftists" (including Stalinists and other such scum, worse than misguided anti-state capitalist supporters) though I personally don't post there. Perhaps sign up, post in the OI section and ask why they think that "anarchist"-capitalism is not real anarchism?


@deadlizard, any 'capitalist' society without a state would, I believe, rapidly produce a state to protect the interests of the capitalist class. I point you to Nozick's book Anarchy, State and Utopia. I disagree with both the conclusions and premise of the book, but can't fault the logic that a stateless capitalism would produce a state.

[NghtRppr]

Property is theft.

That proposition is self-refuting. You can't steal something unless it's the property of someone else. If you reject the notion of property, the notion of theft goes too.

[eof]

Property is theft.

That proposition is self-refuting. You can't steal something unless it's the property of someone else. If you reject the notion of property, the notion of theft goes too.

not really.  Someone hiding / hoarding something in a tribe could be considered 'theft' even if there is no concept of property.

[The Script]

Property is theft.

That proposition is self-refuting. You can't steal something unless it's the property of someone else. If you reject the notion of property, the notion of theft goes too.

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.  I'm not convinced that you can have "excess" property, but I'm willing to read up on that position.  

I've heard the argument that you need to take ideas out to their logical extremes in order to see if they're valid.  So with the idea that you cannot own more property than you can use one would need to take an extreme example.  The one that was presented to me was if one individual or company managed to control the world's entire water supplies (in a free market).  Now, I realize that the likelihood of a single entity controlling the entire water supply of the world is virtually nil, especially in a free market.  But if they could, would we recognize their claim?  Would we agree that they can own all the water and therefore deny it to us if they chose, or would we say we have some sort of right to that water?

I'm curious to know what you think about this as you seem to have a really good grasp on economics and libertarian philosophy.  

[NghtRppr]

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.

I don't believe that "excess" has any objective basis. It's an opinion, nothing more.

[The Script]

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.

I don't believe that "excess" has any objective basis. It's an opinion, nothing more.

I would agree with you.  But what would you say about the hypothetical example wherein one person controls all the world's water supply?  Do they have a right to deny it from us?  I tend to think that arguments should be scaleable, but perhaps this one isn't and the example isn't worth examining because it's never going to happen in reality.

[NghtRppr]

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.

I don't believe that "excess" has any objective basis. It's an opinion, nothing more.

I would agree with you.  But what would you say about the hypothetical example wherein one person controls all the world's water supply?  Do they have a right to deny it from us?  I tend to think that arguments should be scaleable, but perhaps this one isn't and the example isn't worth examining because it's never going to happen in reality.

I can make your example workable if you'll allow for a little fanciful imagination. Imagine the world as it is, nothing changed except, let's say that I own a fresh water lake on my fenced in property. There's no question that I own the lake. I fish in it everyday. I've also built a plastic dome over it to make sure that none of it evaporates. Everything is fine so far.

Now, let's say that aliens show up, beam away all the water in the world, clouds and all, except for my lake. I now control the world's water supply. Has the legal status changed with regards to my lake? Obviously not. The lake is still legally mine. How about the moral status? That, I'm not sure of because we've created a crisis situation and those should never be used to make general laws from because "hard cases make for hard laws."

[em3rgentOrdr]

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.

I don't believe that "excess" has any objective basis. It's an opinion, nothing more.

I would agree with you.  But what would you say about the hypothetical example wherein one person controls all the world's water supply?  Do they have a right to deny it from us?  I tend to think that arguments should be scaleable, but perhaps this one isn't and the example isn't worth examining because it's never going to happen in reality.

I can make your example workable if you'll allow for a little fanciful imagination. Imagine the world as it is, nothing changed except, let's say that I own a fresh water lake on my fenced in property. There's no question that I own the lake. I fish in it everyday. I've also built a plastic dome over it to make sure that none of it evaporates. Everything is fine so far.

Now, let's say that aliens show up, beam away all the water in the world, clouds and all, except for my lake. I now control the world's water supply. Has the legal status changed with regards to my lake? Obviously not. The lake is still legally mine. How about the moral status? That, I'm not sure of because we've created a crisis situation and those should never be used to make general laws from because "hard cases make for hard laws."

Regarding the question of whether the moral status should change because we've created a crisis situation and those should never be used to make general laws from because "hard cases make for hard laws, one could argue that human society is always in a "crisis" situation.  Since it is no longer a specific isolated crisis situation, then one could argue that the moral rules should reflect this.

[NghtRppr]

one could argue that human society is always in a "crisis" situation

True but I meant that relatively speaking. There's a difference between wandering around Sam's Club trying to find the bottled water section vs. the scenario I've described in my last post.

[em3rgentOrdr]

one could argue that human society is always in a "crisis" situation

True but I meant that relatively speaking. There's a difference between wandering around Sam's Club trying to find the bottled water section vs. the scenario I've described in my last post.

The reason I bring that up is that I do hear some argue that "due to global warming, etc., we are in a crisis mode and need implement democratic institutionalized coercion to survive.  Therefore statism."

[MacFall]

Anarcho-fascism: All within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market.

Way to strawman anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists.

Actually that's pretty accurate. Considering that we define "the market" as the sum of all voluntary human interaction and completely oppose involuntary human interaction, it's almost dead-on in fact.

[MacFall]

As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.

And by what standard does "the community" (which is nothing more than a group of self-interested individuals) get to decide that?

How about instead of putting a person at the mercy of a group of persons (which is nothing but playground bullying all growed up and with fancy clothes on), we use an objective standard to determine those things? Something like an identifiable threshold of difference between something that is being properly used or not used, like... maybe the transformation of a part of nature through labor into a productive good? But nah, that's property theory. So much better to let the power-seeking yammerheads who rise like flotsam to the head of "the community" decide.