Anarchy vs. Anarchy

[Borodog]

Ok, it's not really a fight. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, I decided that I wanted to have a discussion about AC vs. AS (which is what I believe Kaj is, he can correct me if I'm wrong), but it was kind of lost in a giant thread with a lot of shouting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what are the implications of this? If individuals do not have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for exclusive use, what does that mean? How would everyone in the world not immediately die out if this "right" were not recognized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do monkeys immediately die out just because they don't formally recognize a "right" to exclusive use of the land? Did the Inuits or Lakota?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about "formal recognition"? Perhaps we are getting off track because of the use of the term "right" (which I put in quotes for a reason). Let me ask again in a different way:

Is it wrong for a individual human being to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Is it wrong for individual monkeys to appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use?

Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes?

In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct?