Why Im no longer an ACist

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly. my seduction rested on reading third rate novels, similar in their romantic approach to, and no better in their literary values than, the Louis L'Amour novels available at the airport. I mean, of course, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and wrote rather stinging criticisms about anarchist thought.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Failure to find a shade of grey to their absolute property-rights

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is impossible to have any meaningful debate on this point without someone legitimizing the exclusive ownership thousands of acres of land (which was here millions of years before them and will be here millions of years after them) with an argument like: "of course this is the case because you aren't sharing your apple with the whole world" or some other stark contrast that is irrelevant in the debate. They are almost evangelical on this point and just as blind to their irrationality. You could ask them: What makes humans so different from every other species in that humans can stake out a territory and just by staking that territory out they automatically assume exclusive rights to it for the rest of their lives and every other member of their species should respect that? But it wouldn't matter, they would fail to see the point.

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit. Rather than name who falls into this group (would be a long list), I'll just name the only two I can think of off the top of my head that do not: AlexM and hmkpoker.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.

[Kaj]

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

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You agree that claim is subjective and then agree that it is a black and white issue once such claim is "legitimized" whatever that means. So thank you for illustrating my point regarding ACists to a tee.

If a polar bear has some claim over an area of ice, the only thing that makes it "legitimate" is his ability to defend it. Sure he can convince the other polar bears to respect his notion of "property rights" (and all power to him), but if he then claims legitimate sovereignty over such land, that doesn't make such a claim absolute. Another polar bear may disagree with his notion of property rights and say to hell with his claim. Such a polar bear is not acting immorally, as you apparently believe, just because he doesn't believe that another polar bear should control such a fine area. This is reality. Humans are no different. We can convince each other to respect our notion of property rights (and more power to those of us who try), but that will never make our notion of property rights an absolute truth and it will never make those who disagree with us "immoral".

Edit: And as a former raving capitalist cheerleader, I can say that most on this board who fail to see this point remind me of myself at 25. It wouldn't help you much to argue this point with me then as I was set in my views and would argue the same tired cliches like "tragedy of the commons" as pvn and others roll out in lieu of more rigorous thought. Now in my late 30s I see that my beliefs then were built on a house of cards. That doesn't mean that libertarian beliefs on property are bad goals -- they are excellent goals. They just are not absolutely true (no more "true" than socialist thought) and are only "legitimate" in the sense that you convince others to accept them or you defend them with force if necessary.

[Bill Haywood]

Val, here's another fundamental reason to forgo the koolaid:

You can't get rid of the state. Even if smashed, a new one will quickly reconstitute itself.

The only way to get rid of a state is with powerful insurgent organizations, which then become the new state. They won't dissolve once the state is smashed because there are so many advantages to remaining.

Re: the "education" counter argument. ACists like to believe that their education efforts will magically take hold and everyone will simply stop enabling the state. But information does not dissolve interests. The state has enormous dependent constituencies that will not become ACists no matter how pretty the speeches. It only takes a small minority of support to maintain a state. So the state has to be smashed, then you are back to previous paragraph.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

[Kaj]

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

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are avoiding the issue by playing on this "simple decree" semantics issue. You believe that legitimate ownership can be inferred on one individual for exclusive use of land -- whether that be by staking it out, discovering it, using it, whatever (and irrelevant). Then you use this concept of "legitimate property rights" as if it was an actual thing, some actual objective standard. Well it is not. It is merely an abstract concept that only has subjective meaning if people accept such a notion. Most ACers here refuse to accept that this concept is just a human abstraction and flies in the face of nature. And they have already demonstrated in this thread that they believe in some "morality" regarding property rights once they are established as "legitimate" -- failing to realize that "legitimate" and "morality" are wholly subjective terms which have no meaning whatsoever unless others want to recognize your "morality" or "legitimacy", which they are free to not do. This does not mean that I am against property. I am just against the tired and absurd arguments on this board that go something like: I own my body, thus I can own territory even if in vast quantities beyond necessary for my subsistence, and if others reject this assertion then their values are "immoral" or infringing on your "rights". There are no [censored] rights. None. Period. Get the [censored] over it. You aren't entitled to [censored] on this earth. I don't give a crap how much labor you mix with your land, it will never confer any objective "legitimacy" unless others choose to recognize it as legitimate (or you have enough force then to at least force them to accept your use). Just like the big lion doesn't give a crap if some other lion has mixed his labor with the land by years of hunting, digging, and the like. Stop believing that humans are unique. We aren't. We do indeed have the ability to reason, however. And using this reason we can persuade each other that it is in our best interests to respect property, if we so choose. But we are not using reason if we conclude that our ability to reason somehow confers an objective morality on the issue of property rights. You do a disservice to reason by using the same worn out (and flawed) approaches.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read all of PVN's posts, but I doubt that he has ever stated (or at least no believes) that staking out a territory = ownership. If you really are familiar with libertarian thought this is going to come across as really condescending, but what the hey.

Axiom: individuals own their bodies
logical deduction: individuals own their labor

Axiom: unclaimed land has no owner
logical deduction: every individual has equal claim to land

situation: individual mixes labor with land
result: individual now has higher claim to end result than any other individual

The implication of building a fence around an area is that person owns the fence and the land the fence i built on, it implies (from a libertarian perspective) nothing about ownership of the land within the fenced area.