Anarchy vs. Anarchy - Page 3

Borodog · #21 08-22-2007, 10:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boro, if the societal norms permit shared use of natural resources to provide sustenance for all, then you won't die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then. No. This is wrong. If I eat an apple, then you can't eat that apple. You can still eat another one, but you sure as hell can't eat that one, unless you wait for the morning, and by then you probably won't want it. Whetever I eat, you can't eat. Because I have used that good, I have denied its use to every other person on earth. This is the definition of "appropriation of natural resources for exclusive use".

Again, I'm not talking about "land" in some expansive extent. I'm just talking about natural resources; if individuals don't appropriate some natural resources for their own exclusive use, then they will die of (at least) starvation. Agreed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And whether you call this appropriation a natural right or a societal norm is really not important. By the way, by this discussion path, am I wrong to take one of your apples to feed a starving person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you ask first? You might be surprised.

And are you yourself starving? If not, why not give him one of yours?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the Crusoes doing anything wrong based on my personal opinion, I don't know what exactly they are doing. There's a difference between grabbing some logs for a fire and pouring 1000s of gallons of poison into the sea. I'll follow-up more later...

[/ QUOTE ]

Presume for the sake of discussion that they aren't pouring poison into the sea, since that could obviously affect the other Crusoes on the other islands. We can reinstate that possibility later, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still asking me whether I regard some activity as "not wrong" according to my personal value system without telling me what the activity itself exactly is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appropriating natural resources to improve their external material conditions. Harvesting coconuts, chopping down trees to build a cabin, digging trenches for latrines, leveling ground to plant crops, hunting and fishing, domesticating wild goats, killing venomous snakes and scorpions, etc.

elwoodblues · #22 08-22-2007, 10:43 AM

Hypothetical:

Robinson Crusoe and The Swiss Family Robinson are stranded on an island. The island has 1 wooded area with enough trees to supply their lumber and fuel needs. Basically, when anyone needs logs for a fire they walk into the forest, grab some fallen limbs and bring it back to their camp. Same with lumber needs.

The Swiss Family Robinson decide that they want to use the forest area to build their home. They level the entire wooded area (thereby "improving" the land) and with their sweat equity claim that land as Swissland.

Have they done anything wrong under either AS or AC?

tomdemaine · #23 08-22-2007, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical:

Robinson Crusoe and The Swiss Family Robinson are stranded on an island. The island has 1 wooded area with enough trees to supply their lumber and fuel needs. Basically, when anyone needs logs for a fire they walk into the forest, grab some fallen limbs and bring it back to their camp. Same with lumber needs.

The Swiss Family Robinson decide that they want to use the forest area to build their home. They level the entire wooded area (thereby "improving" the land) and with their sweat equity claim that land as Swissland.

Have they done anything wrong under either AS or AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under AC the wood would be owned thereby doing away with this messy situation it could be easily solved through negotiation and compensation.

elwoodblues · #24 08-22-2007, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Under AC the wood would be owned thereby doing away with this messy situation it could be easily solved through negotiation and compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned by whom? Would the Swiss family own it because they destroyed/leveled the forest to build their house?

tomdemaine · #25 08-22-2007, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under AC the wood would be owned thereby doing away with this messy situation it could be easily solved through negotiation and compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned by whom? Would the Swiss family own it because they destroyed/leveled the forest to build their house?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was being used before it would already be owned. If it isn't owned then it isn't an AC society.

elwoodblues · #26 08-22-2007, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under AC the wood would be owned thereby doing away with this messy situation it could be easily solved through negotiation and compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned by whom? Would the Swiss family own it because they destroyed/leveled the forest to build their house?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was being used before it would already be owned. If it isn't owned then it isn't an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Who owned it already? This is uninhabited land...Did Robinson Crusoe own "the forest" or just those fallen branches that he had taken out of the forest? Even in an AC society there is (at least for the short term) a potential for land that is not owned yet --- i.e. not every piece of potential real property necessarily has an owner is ACtopia.

tomdemaine · #27 08-22-2007, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under AC the wood would be owned thereby doing away with this messy situation it could be easily solved through negotiation and compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned by whom? Would the Swiss family own it because they destroyed/leveled the forest to build their house?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was being used before it would already be owned. If it isn't owned then it isn't an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Who owned it already? This is uninhabited land...Did Robinson Crusoe own "the forest" or just those fallen branches that he had taken out of the forest? Even in an AC society there is (at least for the short term) a potential for land that is not owned yet --- i.e. not every piece of potential real property necessarily has an owner is ACtopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

"when anyone needs logs for a fire they walk into the forest, grab some fallen limbs and bring it back to their camp."

This implies that they're using the land pretty often. This plus the fact that you are assuming an AC society implies that it is owned by someone. Who doesn't matter in order to solve your problem. It's your hypothetical so you pick.

elwoodblues · #28 08-22-2007, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This plus the fact that you are assuming an AC society implies that it is owned by someone

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you think that. I will say again what I said earlier --- even in an AC society there is potentially land that has no owner.

[ QUOTE ]
This implies that they're using the land pretty often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are walking through the forest to pick up fallen branches. I sincerely doubt that walking through the forest (and not mixing your labor with the land to improve it) is enough to establish a claim of ownership. Prior to the Swiss Family's action, at most anything either of the parties own is the branches themselves.

Zygote · #29 08-22-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
so long as he lives apart from my community

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows that the macro scale of a anarchistic society must be capitalist and private property based. No doubt people can start any communal property but they're still asking for a private communal property if you catch my drift.

nietzreznor · #30 08-22-2007, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical:

Robinson Crusoe and The Swiss Family Robinson are stranded on an island. The island has 1 wooded area with enough trees to supply their lumber and fuel needs. Basically, when anyone needs logs for a fire they walk into the forest, grab some fallen limbs and bring it back to their camp. Same with lumber needs.

The Swiss Family Robinson decide that they want to use the forest area to build their home. They level the entire wooded area (thereby "improving" the land) and with their sweat equity claim that land as Swissland.

Have they done anything wrong under either AS or AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

My gut reaction is that since they're both currently using the land (with some consistency), that the Swiss Family Robinson can't suddenly claim the entirety of the forest, regardless of how they improve it. Ultimately, I'm not sure that improvement is a necessary nor sufficient condition for ownership (unless 'improvement' was defined broadly enough to include basic use).