Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot not even exist on this earth without occupying some space and land without the consent of others. Without allowing for private land use, who am i to stop someone who stands precisely where im standing?


[/ QUOTE ] Haha. How do you expect this someone to stand precisely where you're standing? And why would anyone be interested in that?

As for your claim that private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources, it's just not true. You might claim that on a larger scale it's true, and I can't refute you so long as it has never been tried, but your claim is certainly unsubstanciated and your logic is all over the place.

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha. How do you expect this someone to stand precisely where you're standing? And why would anyone be interested in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can stand where im standing only by forcefully removing me or persuading me away. IF they choose the first option they are a statist if they choose the second option then they respect private property.

[ QUOTE ]

As for your claim that private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources, it's just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources. I said they are the only rational means of solving conflicts of scarce resources without resorting to statism.

[ QUOTE ]

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now that youve made this point ill retract my argument since this must render my point incorrect [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
The can stand where im standing only by forcefully removing me or persuading me away. IF they choose the first option they are a statist if they choose the second option then they respect private property.

[/ QUOTE ] If they choose the first option you get to defend yourself. If they choose the second option they respect that you own your self and your own body.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources. I said they are on the only rational means of solving conflicts of scarce resources without resorting to statism.

[/ QUOTE ]The conflicts stem from property rights, so it's circular to claim you need property rights to solve them. If nobody would respect your sole right to "your land", why would you bother initiating some violent conflict over it? Nothing would be won until you had killed or imprisoned all the people that didn't respect your property. That doesn't seem so cost-efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now that youve made this point ill retract my argument since this must render my point incorrect [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] Not necessarily, but when the in house ACists don't agree with you, that probably means that nobody does.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Freedom and happiness? How can a philosophy that advocates maximal economic and social freedom reduce freedom? Also, do you equate any form of tyranny with happiness?


[/ QUOTE ]

Learn the trademarks of your own stated view. Philosophies don't reduce freedoms, people do.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
If they choose the first option you get to defend yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesnt take away from the fact they are attempted statists since they try an appropriate resources by force.

[ QUOTE ]
The conflicts stem from property rights, so it's circular to claim you need property rights to solve them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conflicts stem from scarce resources. Property rights are the rational means for solving the conflicts.

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing would be won until you had killed or imprisoned all the people that didn't respect your property. That doesn't seem so cost-efficient.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an hyperbole but i agree you are only as safe as the positive protections provide.

You need to compare the cost-efficiency to the alternative by the way.

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily, but when the in house ACists don't agree with you, that probably means that nobody does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive always found the amount of disagreement amongst anarcho-capitalists to be fascinating. For example, the major modern anarcho-capitalist founders take varying views on reasonably substantial issues. Im speaking of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman of course.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Freedom and happiness? How can a philosophy that advocates maximal economic and social freedom reduce freedom? Also, do you equate any form of tyranny with happiness?


[/ QUOTE ]

Learn the trademarks of your own stated view. Philosophies don't reduce freedoms, people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can individuals who practice a social order of maximal economic and social freedom reduce individual freedom?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist.

[/ QUOTE ]

An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied.


[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say:

"An anarchist who does believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied."

Both of these statements seem true to many who support the opposite sides, but both are completely false. To both, the other side is the one initiating force and because of the nature of belief, they are both completely correct in believing that. The fact is that in any kind of anarchist society where these two beliefs exist in a significant portion of the population, which they both do, they will have to find a means to compromise or collapse into statism, regardless of which one would be dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad that's not actually true in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you expand on that point? i dont get it

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about two incompatible beliefs. Either version of "anarchy" would require forcing one set of beliefs unto those who have the other, which would make it not anarchy. To ACists someone who trespasses is intiating violence and to ASists someone who owns land is initiating violence. You can't just say "well they can work within our AC system and buy their own property blah blah blah" because that means you're imposing your system on them. Not to say it isn't better than the way things are now, but it would it would still be statism. For either of these philosophies to "reign" would make it not anarchy and as such anarchy can only exist if these two philosophies can find a way to compromise. Tthe creation of "anarchist countries" where different versions of anarchism reign supreme is the best thing I can think of despite the fact that that sounds oxymoronic.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

You're talking about two incompatible beliefs. Either version of "anarchy" would require forcing one set of beliefs unto those who have the other, which would make it not anarchy. To ACists someone who trespasses is intiating violence and to ASists someone who owns land is initiating violence. You can't just say "well they can work within our AC system and buy their own property blah blah blah" because that means you're imposing your system on them. Not to say it isn't better than the way things are now, but it would it would still be statism. For either of these philosophies to "reign" would make it not anarchy and as such anarchy can only exist if these two philosophies can find a way to compromise. Tthe creation of "anarchist countries" where different versions of anarchism reign supreme is the best thing I can think of despite the fact that that sounds oxymoronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'd rather these "countries" be on much smaller scales than modern day countries. I'd be all for a general ACism at the highest level (which is I think the convoluted point that Zygote is headed for), mostly because anything else is impossible to handle.

I personally feel that some "statist" version is best on local macro levels, neither at the level of AC nor AS nor certainly what we have today. I don't think this would lead to economic efficiency by any mean, but that's not my goal.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Freedom and happiness? How can a philosophy that advocates maximal economic and social freedom reduce freedom? Also, do you equate any form of tyranny with happiness?


[/ QUOTE ]

Learn the trademarks of your own stated view. Philosophies don't reduce freedoms, people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can individuals who practice a social order of maximal economic and social freedom reduce individual freedom?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not relevant, because we aren't talking about those people.

The question is how large an impact will the people who don't abide by those principles have in your hypothetical society.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're talking about two incompatible beliefs. Either version of "anarchy" would require forcing one set of beliefs unto those who have the other, which would make it not anarchy. To ACists someone who trespasses is intiating violence and to ASists someone who owns land is initiating violence. You can't just say "well they can work within our AC system and buy their own property blah blah blah" because that means you're imposing your system on them. Not to say it isn't better than the way things are now, but it would it would still be statism. For either of these philosophies to "reign" would make it not anarchy and as such anarchy can only exist if these two philosophies can find a way to compromise. Tthe creation of "anarchist countries" where different versions of anarchism reign supreme is the best thing I can think of despite the fact that that sounds oxymoronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'd rather these "countries" be on much smaller scales than modern day countries. I'd be all for a general ACism at the highest level (which is I think the convoluted point that Zygote is headed for), mostly because anything else is impossible to handle.

I personally feel that some "statist" version is best on local macro levels, neither at the level of AC nor AS nor certainly what we have today. I don't think this would lead to economic efficiency by any mean, but that's not my goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, the more I learn and understand about the rift between AC and AS, the more I think that true anarchy may be impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get as close as we can.