Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

ACism is like a religion, where private property rights are what you worship.

"Private property is right and good. Limitations on private property are evil and horrible. Why? Because we say so and it feels right. This is the only way a good society can be created."

Do you recognize that argument? I think you should, because it's the same kind of argument the statists use against you. And that is, as far as I can tell, the basis of your philosophy.

Realise that property is a lot more complicated than that. You ask me why should you be forced to give anything to this entity called "the people"? Well, I ask you why the people should refrain from taking whatever they need "from you"* (as long as they don't take anything you need for your survival). "Because it's the law? "Because society would not work if they could do that?" Who's law? It certainly appears to be your law, but it's not mine. You sound like statists again.

* They're not really taking anything from you. You have showed me no basis for why you should allowed to own anything, let alone something that other people need to survive. If I live in an anarchy, and I have never signed a contract saying I will respect private property, what right do you have to force me to respect it?

As a sidenote, and I don't want this to be the main issue in the thread: Didn't the European settlers steal the land in the US when they came there? I'm pretty sure it wasn't a voluntary transaction at least. I guess the ancestors of the native americans will be very rich in AC-land. Plenty of other examples of the same thing exist. My point here is not that you should give the land back to the native americans (they are dead anyway, for one), it is that property is a much more complicated issue than you give it credit for.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a sidenote, and I don't want this to be the main issue in the thread: Didn't the European settlers steal the land in the US when they came there? I'm pretty sure it wasn't a voluntary transaction at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't guess on the percentages, but lots of the early colonies' land was in fact purchased from its inhabitants. Does Manhattan and string of beads ring a bell?

By the time Lincoln counqered the States and paved the way for US Empire-building, it was being taken by wholesale slaughter.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
You ask me why should you be forced to give anything to this entity called "the people"? Well, I ask you why the people should refrain from taking whatever they need "from you"* (as long as they don't take anything you need for your survival).

[/ QUOTE ]
Why the parethetical? States (what you are calling "the people") very often take and expend the lives of their citizens for their own ridiculous purposes -- do you think all the Americans that were sent to die in Vietnam did it voluntarily?

In answer to your question, the state shoud refrain from taking whatever it wants (including my life and freedom) from me personally because I am (along with others) prepared to revolt and kill in defense of my life if things get ugly enough. The situation has been identical throughout history -- states WILL take exactly what they feel they can get away with while retaining their power. It is precisely the societies that have been most intolerant of forced confiscation (i.e. the ones with most respect for property rights) that have been most successful.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

You're counter-attacking to the wrong side. I am not a statist.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

You obviously don't understand the slightest thing about AC.

Do you realize that most schools of AC thought do in fact place limits on property right? In fact, you might want to read what it says about property in the AC FAQ in the sticky because it's nothing like what you seem to be saying.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

real anarchists hop trains, live in squatting communes, and live off stolen Odwalla products, amirite OP?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're counter-attacking to the wrong side. I am not a statist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there are any attacks in my post -- I pointed out that a parenthetical was not needed, and answered a direct question posed in your post.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're counter-attacking to the wrong side. I am not a statist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there are any attacks in my post -- I pointed out that a parenthetical was not needed, and answered a direct question posed in your post.

[/ QUOTE ] No. I said the people. You translated that to mean "the state". I didn't mean the state.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're counter-attacking to the wrong side. I am not a statist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there are any attacks in my post -- I pointed out that a parenthetical was not needed, and answered a direct question posed in your post.

[/ QUOTE ] No. I said the people. You translated that to mean "the state". I didn't mean the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it you're aware of the easy confusion, since the biggest and most restrictive/invasive states typically masquerade as "the people."

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

I am. It was a very reasonable misudnerstanding.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
In answer to your question, the state shoud refrain from taking whatever it wants (including my life and freedom) from me personally because I am (along with others) prepared to revolt and kill in defense of my life if things get ugly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. So people (state or not) should take what they need from others, but without going so far as to anger most people into violence.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In answer to your question, the state shoud refrain from taking whatever it wants (including my life and freedom) from me personally because I am (along with others) prepared to revolt and kill in defense of my life if things get ugly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. So people (state or not) should take what they need from others, but without going so far as to anger most people into violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say "should" at all. I simply note what people and organizations tend to do. In fact, libertarianism is about going in the opposite direction -- taking less than you could get away with without pissing people off. I.E. respecting property rights and free association.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

I phrased that poorly.

This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

Your response may be true in certain cases. But assuming you pay taxes and haven't killed any government officials then it's obviously not true in all circumstances.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I phrased that poorly.

This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

Your response may be true in certain cases. But assuming you pay taxes and haven't killed any government officials then it's obviously not true in all circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP asked why people shouldn't take whatever they want from me. "Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff, and self-defense is ultimately the bottom line for me personally. But it also tends to be true that societies that respect property rights will tend to prosper (as I mentioned in my original reply) -- so if you'd like a less extreme answer, there you go.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends what they want.

[ QUOTE ]
But it also tends to be true that societies that respect property rights will tend to prosper (as I mentioned in my original reply) -- so if you'd like a less extreme answer, there you go.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correlation does not equal causation. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but we can't do much more than speculate. Defining "prosperity" would also be an interesting challenge. Countries with the highest "standard of living" tend to be fairly socialist in nature. Most ACists would describe this as not respecting property rights (to a more extreme extent, than say, the US). Of course the definition of "standard of living" is debatable, much like the definition of "prosperity".

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
Private property is right and good. Limitations on private property are evil and horrible. Why? Because we say so and it feels right. This is the only way a good society can be created."

Do you recognize that argument? I think you should, because it's the same kind of argument the statists use against you. And that is, as far as I can tell, the basis of your philosophy.

Realise that property is a lot more complicated than that. You ask me why should you be forced to give anything to this entity called "the people"? Well, I ask you why the people should refrain from taking whatever they need "from you"* (as long as they don't take anything you need for your survival). "Because it's the law? "Because society would not work if they could do that?" Who's law? It certainly appears to be your law, but it's not mine. You sound like statists again.

* They're not really taking anything from you. You have showed me no basis for why you should allowed to own anything, let alone something that other people need to survive. If I live in an anarchy, and I have never signed a contract saying I will respect private property, what right do you have to force me to respect it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not entirely sure what argument you are trying to make. I don't think you've given a very credible or charitable reconstruction of an ACist argument for absolute property rights.
If your point is that ACist claims of property ownership are ultimately unfounded, this is true only to the extent that every statement of any type is 'unfounded' if you go back far enough. But I don't think that most anarchists feel that limitations on property rights are 'evil and horrible' because 'we say so and it feels right.' Most people already think that murder, aggression, and theft are generally wrong, and ACist property rights arguments are mostly designed, not to justify these things (not sure that they need any justification imo), but to show that the logical consequence of being against theft is being against taxation, etc. I really don't see much 'religious' about this.

And I don't think it's necessarily true that libertarians/ACists 'worship' property rights above all else. I think this is a common misconception rooted in the fact that AC property rights are generally considered to be 'absolute.' But I think the only thing that is 'absolute' about property rights is a victim's right to compensation. Thus, the fact that property rights exist, and that they are absolute, doesn't answer (definitively) a question about how I should act in some situation. There may be times when the virtuous way to act would be against someone's property rights (eg, stealing to feed your hungry child). So property rights aren't absolte restraints on how you or I should act, but they are absolute in that even if I had a good reason to steal food to feed my kid, you'd have a legitimate claim to compensation at some point.

As for the issue of property rights being 'complicated', I think this is a conflation of two separate issue: the theoretical absoluteness of property rights in general, and the actual absoluteness of some specific property right. Questions about, say, who should legitimately own land unrighttfully taken from Native Americans shows that property rights are complicated and not absolte in the second sense, but not in the first. ACists don't deny that there are cases in which it may be difficult to find who legitimately owns some land--in practice I bet there would be lots of compromise, and much would depend on local custom and precedent. But this doesn't mean that property rights once defined would be less than absolute. The complication is practical but not theoretical.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
There may be times when the virtuous way to act would be against someone's property rights (eg, stealing to feed your hungry child).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--for one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. Second, one would have to provide an argument--'slippery slope' isn't really an argument. In general, state programs like taxation couldn't be justified by the line of reasoning presented because they represent systematic oppression and exploitation, which doesn't seem acceptable even in serious circumstances (part of what makes stealing seem *possibly* acceptable when feeding your starving kid is that it is kind of an emergency--kid needs food or he/she will get sick, starve, etc). This can never really be the case when we're talking about systematic theft and violence, in part because it is inherently systematic.

Again, this really doesn't undercut the AC notion of property rights, since 'rights' delineate cases where obligations can be legitimately enforced with violence. If I steal from you to feed my kid, even if I have good moral reasons and I beleive I'm acting virtuously, you still are entitled to compensation because that food was *yours* and my emergency situation doesn't negate your rights (it just changes how a person ought to act--to take a more emergency-like example, I might steal your car if I thought it was the only way to get a bleeding man to the hospital in time. but my good intentions and virtuous behavior don't negate the fact that its *your* car, and if I do any damage to it I, or perhaps the injured person, would owe you compensation).

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--for one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. <font color="red"> yes, they are </font> Second, one would have to provide an argument--'slippery slope' isn't really an argument. In general, state programs like taxation couldn't be justified by the line of reasoning presented because they represent systematic oppression and exploitation, <font color="red"> no they dont </font> which doesn't seem acceptable even in serious circumstances (part of what makes stealing seem *possibly* acceptable when feeding your starving kid is that it is kind of an emergency--kid needs food or he/she will get sick, starve, etc). This can never really be the case when we're talking about systematic theft and violence, in part because it is inherently systematic.

Again, this really doesn't undercut the AC notion of property rights, since 'rights' delineate cases where obligations can be legitimately enforced with violence. If I steal from you to feed my kid, even if I have good moral reasons and I beleive I'm acting virtuously, you still are entitled to compensation because that food was *yours* and my emergency situation doesn't negate your rights (it just changes how a person ought to act--to take a more emergency-like example, I might steal your car if I thought it was the only way to get a bleeding man to the hospital in time. but my good intentions and virtuous behavior don't negate the fact that its *your* car, and if I do any damage to it I, or perhaps the injured person, would owe you compensation).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm not entirely sure what argument you are trying to make. I don't think you've given a very credible or charitable reconstruction of an ACist argument for absolute property rights.
If your point is that ACist claims of property ownership are ultimately unfounded, this is true only to the extent that every statement of any type is 'unfounded' if you go back far enough. But I don't think that most anarchists feel that limitations on property rights are 'evil and horrible' because 'we say so and it feels right.' Most people already think that murder, aggression, and theft are generally wrong, and ACist property rights arguments are mostly designed, not to justify these things (not sure that they need any justification imo), but to show that the logical consequence of being against theft is being against taxation, etc. I really don't see much 'religious' about this.

[/ QUOTE ] Most people think selling drugs is wrong, yet you think it's perfectly fine. Your moral views don't appear to come from most people, but from yourself, so "because I say so and it feels right" can't be too far from the truth. I agree though, that this is not very charitable of me to say. Obviously you could say the same about my moral views. There is still a point here: I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong. I think it's ok to stop someone from forcefully imposing their will onto you or others, even if you have to use force yourself. You agree with this, but then you want to impose your view on private property on top of it. And I don't see how you have the right to do that.

If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP asked why people shouldn't take whatever they want from me. "Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff, and self-defense is ultimately the bottom line for me personally.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, it makes little difference, but I did say whatever they need. Don't know if you were disagreeing with foal on that or just using "want" as a synonyme for "need". It wouldn't be too far from a synonyme in this scenario anyway.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people think selling drugs is wrong, yet you think it's perfectly fine. Your moral views don't appear to come from most people

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think selling some drugs is morally wrong. I just don't think anyone has the right to use force to stop someone from selling drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
There is still a point here: I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[ QUOTE ]
If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on which kind of 'right' you are talking about. My natural right to my property exists even if it isn't respected (natural rights pick out what *ought* to be protected, not what necessarily is protected or can be protected at the time). But my de facto and de jure rights to property clearly only exist to the extent that they are 'respected', and that clearly turns on questions about the existence of States, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily I think this question need not be answered with violence! I think both views can coexist in an anarchist society, since a stateless society will be highly decentralized and allow for a great variety of local custom and law.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong. I think it's ok to stop someone from forcefully imposing their will onto you or others, even if you have to use force yourself. You agree with this, but then you want to impose your view on private property on top of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not on top of it, it's part of it. If I own something and someone else tries to steal it or harm it or do anything to it that I don't like, they are forcefully imposing their will onto me and I have every right to respond with force.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[/ QUOTE ] Something is being imposed on A if violence is used to stop him. Go back to when slaves are property. If I help a slave run away from his owner, I am the aggressor, right? Nothing is being imposed on me if I'm violently stopped from doing so?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

[/ QUOTE ] Depends on which kind of 'right' you are talking about. My natural right to my property exists even if it isn't respected (natural rights pick out what *ought* to be protected, not what necessarily is protected or can be protected at the time). But my de facto and de jure rights to property clearly only exist to the extent that they are 'respected', and that clearly turns on questions about the existence of States, etc.

[/ QUOTE ] If what you mean by a natural right is the right to use violence to enforce them, I'm saying you don't have a natural right to unlimited property rights. A lot of people think everyone has a natural right to food, water, shelter and so on. Right to not be discriminated against because of race, sex, opinions, retardation, chronic illness, so on. Maybe we can use violence to enforce all of that too. It would be some "anarchy".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
Luckily I think this question need not be answered with violence! I think both views can coexist in an anarchist society, since a stateless society will be highly decentralized and allow for a great variety of local custom and law.

[/ QUOTE ] And some local customs could envolve violently enforcing "law" on people that had not agreed to it?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[/ QUOTE ] Something is being imposed on A if violence is used to stop him. Go back to when slaves are property. If I help a slave run away from his owner, I am the aggressor, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, to make it easier for you imagine I "steal" some of your cattle or your cat.

nobody owns a cat. lol

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

In a more serious vein, note that I did not ask if the slave owner imposed anything on the slave. It is obvious that you will think so. I asked if the slave owner imposed anything on me if he used violence to stop me from freeing his slave. The analogy works perfectly. He thought owning slaves was his natural right. You think owning land is your natural right. Does that mean he could use violence? Does that mean you can use violence?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, to make it easier for you imagine I "steal" some of your cattle or your cat.

nobody owns a cat. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are you stealing this cat? If you're picking it up, putting it in your car and taking it across the city, that's definitely initiating force on the cat. No different than doing the same thing to a child despite the fact that I don't "own" my child.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a more serious vein, note that I did not ask if the slave owner imposed anything on the slave. It is obvious that you will think so. I asked if the slave owner imposed anything on me if he used violence to stop me from freeing his slave. The analogy works perfectly. He thought owning slaves was his natural right. You think owning land is your natural right. Does that mean he could use violence? Does that mean you can use violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all a question of who initiates aggression, not who uses it. In the example of the slave owner, he has initiated on the slave. Since the initiation has already happened, you coming in to help the slave isn't initiation. When I go out into the wilderness and homestead a piece of land and work to make it productive for society, I haven't intiated aggression on anyone. It isn't until someone comes and messes with my land that the initiation has happened and it's not the land owner who's the initiator.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
or one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. <font color="red"> yes, they are </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the person taking the money and giving the "compensation" says so?

If I take your wallet and give you a handful of toad poop, have you been compensated?

PS: LEARN HOW TO REPLY

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people think selling drugs is wrong, yet you think it's perfectly fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an incorrect framing of his views. There's a difference between saying someone has no right to stop a person from doing something, and approving of that particular action. I think eating 200 doughnuts every day is probably a "bad" choice but I don't feel that anyone should be able to use force to stop you from doing it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your moral views don't appear to come from most people, but from yourself, so "because I say so and it feels right" can't be too far from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it can.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree though, that this is not very charitable of me to say. Obviously you could say the same about my moral views. There is still a point here: I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong. I think it's ok to stop someone from forcefully imposing their will onto you or others, even if you have to use force yourself. You agree with this, but then you want to impose your view on private property on top of it. And I don't see how you have the right to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. If you don't like my view on property, then that's fine with me. Just don't try to interact with me.

If you don't believe that the land that I think I own can be owned at all, then you must recognize that YOU don't own it either, and therefore you have no right to be there, so my exclusion of you from that property is in no way depriving you of anything you are entitled to.

[ QUOTE ]
You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't tell them otherwise.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a more serious vein, note that I did not ask if the slave owner imposed anything on the slave. It is obvious that you will think so. I asked if the slave owner imposed anything on me if he used violence to stop me from freeing his slave. The analogy works perfectly. He thought owning slaves was his natural right. You think owning land is your natural right. Does that mean he could use violence? Does that mean you can use violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slaves are human beings, and are moral agents. freeing a slave is stopping an aggression against him. Cats and land and cows are not moral agents.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go back to when slaves are property. If I help a slave run away from his owner, I am the aggressor, right? Nothing is being imposed on me if I'm violently stopped from doing so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly the slaveowner is the aggressor, not you. Slavery violates the principle of self-ownership.

[ QUOTE ]
If what you mean by a natural right is the right to use violence to enforce them, I'm saying you don't have a natural right to unlimited property rights. A lot of people think everyone has a natural right to food, water, shelter and so on. Right to not be discriminated against because of race, sex, opinions, retardation, chronic illness, so on. Maybe we can use violence to enforce all of that too. It would be some "anarchy".

[/ QUOTE ]

But it matters which of these views are actually correct! I'm not a moral relativist, so I don't concede that just because, say, you and I have different views about property rights, that any attempt to force one view at the expense of the other constitutes aggression. The whole point of arguing and debating about rights theory is to find out which rights we *actually* have. Now, I haven't put forth an argument for traditional libertarian self-ownership, and I don't really intend to. But the reason I think this particular point isn't very convincing is because IF the libertarian view of self-ownership is essentially correct, then it doesn't matter that some people disagree, or think that there should be a right to food, etc. Individuals don't get to choose which rights they find appealing and then cry "aggression!" when they aren't followed. We find the rights that we actually have (I would arguew that it is self-ownership) and see what actions are consistent and inconsistent with that.

[ QUOTE ]
And some local customs could envolve violently enforcing "law" on people that had not agreed to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points:

1. You don't have to agree to a law to be under its jurisdiction, if we're talking about natural-rights violations (eg, even if I don't agree to a law about not killing people, I can still legitimately be held liable if I kill someone).

2. As we are proving with this argument, people don't always agree on what is 'right', 'good', etc. One of the biggest benefits of an anarchist society is that a large are, like the US, could be home to a WIDE variety of different communities with different local customs. Some communities may have rules and appraoches to life that I find unlibertarian or otherwise distasteful. Some may not respect property rights at all. Now, anarchists could be up in arms that community XYZ is too conservative, has stupid regressive laws, etc. But what should someone do--purge the land of all law that isn't in exact accordance with libertarian principle? My point was that different communities can exist side by side, and since there are lots of communities without any overarching federal bureaucracy it is much easier for an individual to avoid an oppressive situation by just leaving and going to a different community (much much easier to do than it is right now).

EDIT: I should add, wrt to issues of different fundamental views of property rights... Libertarians base their views of property rights on the a) the prionciple of self-ownership, and b) homesteading theory. I think both of these are more intuitive and more fundamentally held than any property theories with stuff like "everyone has the right to food." I also think any such "postive rights" theories are inconsistent with self-ownership, so if the choice is between "everyone owns themselves" and "everyone has a right to food", I'll take the former.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]

Slaves are human beings, and are moral agents. freeing a slave is stopping an aggression against him. Cats and land and cows are not moral agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we changed the slave in the analogy to his 13-year old daughter, who is being 'aggressed upon' by him grounding her for 6 weeks for having a $363.12 cell phone bill last month.

He has taken away her access to several things, and restricted her freedom, much to her chagrin.

If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Slaves are human beings, and are moral agents. freeing a slave is stopping an aggression against him. Cats and land and cows are not moral agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we changed the slave in the analogy to his 13-year old daughter, who is being 'aggressed upon' by him grounding her for 6 weeks for having a $363.12 cell phone bill last month.

He has taken away her access to several things, and restricted her freedom, much to her chagrin.

If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is she a moral agent?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Slaves are human beings, and are moral agents. freeing a slave is stopping an aggression against him. Cats and land and cows are not moral agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we changed the slave in the analogy to his 13-year old daughter, who is being 'aggressed upon' by him grounding her for 6 weeks for having a $363.12 cell phone bill last month.

He has taken away her access to several things, and restricted her freedom, much to her chagrin.

If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is she a moral agent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it again with the emphasis added. (Yes, she is a moral agent.)

That being clear....again...If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Slaves are human beings, and are moral agents. freeing a slave is stopping an aggression against him. Cats and land and cows are not moral agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we changed the slave in the analogy to his 13-year old daughter, who is being 'aggressed upon' by him grounding her for 6 weeks for having a $363.12 cell phone bill last month.

He has taken away her access to several things, and restricted her freedom, much to her chagrin.

If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is she a moral agent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it again with the emphasis added. (Yes, she is a moral agent.)

That being clear....again...If a 40-year old man comes along and "frees" her by the two of them running off, is the pedo justified in using force against the father in freeing her as a moral agent who is being 'aggressed upon', since the father was the initiator?

Is the father justified in using force to defend what he believes is in the best interest of his young daughter, despite it not being her wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If she is a moral agent, it doesn't matter how old the daughter, the "pedo", or the father are.

Actually, if she isn't, it doesn't matter.

If she's a moral agent, she makes her own decisions.

If she isn't, she doesn't.

But feel free to muddy up the waters with a lot of emotional appeals. That sort of pandering to base lizard-brain instincts works in a lot of places, but generally doesn't here.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]


If she is a moral agent, it doesn't matter how old the daughter, the "pedo", or the father are.

Actually, if she isn't, it doesn't matter.

If she's a moral agent, she makes her own decisions.

If she isn't, she doesn't.

But feel free to muddy up the waters with a lot of emotional appeals. That sort of pandering to base lizard-brain instincts works in a lot of places, but generally doesn't here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it doesn't; you are subscribers to an abstract notion of how to live your life that breaks down when subjected to the slightest real world scrutiny.

Once again, please go ahead and educate the world at large of the attractiveness of AC-land using this example. Please.