Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

it's a discussion of whether or not we have a legitimate claim to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Legitimacy requires a rational inquiry. There is no way to go about a rational inquiry without assuming that one owns the property from which they rationally inquire from. No conclusion in your rational inquiry can deny that you own the land you stand on. One cannot discover that their land use is illegitimate since they would be verifying its legitimacy to establish any position on the issue. You can't even say i believe that no one should be inquiring about legitimacy because that is an inquiry and comes with a large bag of implications.

[ QUOTE ]


You were clearly implying that this means that the ASist "country" owns their land, which also implies that all existing countries own their land and even implies that we already have ACism as our existing "macro structure" today, which renders this entire discussion meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

ASist countries own their an land because it had to be established from private property first. The same is no true for current ruling govenrments.

All society starts off anarcho-capitalistically. So far as people choose to force others beyond the initial property rights they become statist. However, in a way, each country relative to each other are in a state of anarchy and are capitalistically divided. Anarcho-capitalism is the major structure from the perspective of one country to another, so far as property rights are respected, but this doesnt mean that countries are anarcho-capitalistic within themselves. In fact they are socialist statists because they respect the property rights of other countries more than they do the property rights of their own citizens.

If more than one of anything is to exist the basis must of divide must be property. Whether we discuss two countries, two tribes, or two individuals. If we agree that there should be more than one size fits all, anarcho-capitalism must be the structural framework.

[ QUOTE ]


You're making less and less sense. So you are saying that all of the property in the U.S. that we call "public" property is actually private property? Well, if you're going to make absurd changes to the way we use these words then yes, you can prove any point you like simply by changing the meanings a little bit more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Public property can only exist in a statist way. The only alternative is for private owners to agree to use their property amongst themselves in a public way within their own group but their group relative to others is always private. No group, no matter how socialist can deny private use of ones own body and private use of the land they stand on. Without this the society would be stuck in paralysis or doomed to be a victim of a state.

[AlexM]

Since you're obviously not interested in trying to understand AS belief, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you're obviously not interested in trying to understand AS belief, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf does that mean?

funny you sarcastically told me i was "mightily open minded".

I appreciate your ideas but your tone, so far as can be sensed online has been negative from the start, and you throw in some responses like this in the mix which are nothing more than attacks rather than rebuttals.

If you choose to participate no more i dont see why i should interpret that as any more than you being unable to find a basis of rebuttal rather than clear proof you were right.

[wtfsvi]

I'm glad to see that you are so open to ideas that differ from your own, AlexM.

As for you, Zygote, I'm amazed that someone who seems so (judging you by only your posts in this thread) close minded, have been converted to ACism in the first place.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

As for you, Zygote, I'm amazed that someone who seems so (judging you by only your posts in this thread) close minded, have been converted to ACism in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think ive ignored anyones criticisms? Many of my rebuttals to people's criticisms have been ignored throughout this thread though.

Just because i disagree doesnt mean im not open minded. Im just of the opinion that the current arguments still favor the position i started with. When i can't rebut a point brought up i will concede. If only a marginal concession.

[wtfsvi]

AlexM said: [ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the crux of the disagreement, and it was never refuted.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
ASists someone who owns land is initiating violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why anarcho socialism does not make sense. The only form of socialism that can exist without statism is the private groupings ive talked about.

If i accept the ASists position i must think of them and everyone alive as initiating force against themselves and each other simply by standing still and thinking. These cause a variety of anomalies.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why anarcho socialism does not make sense. The only form of socialism that can exist without statism is the private groupings ive talked about.

If i accept the ASists position i must think of them and everyone alive as initiating force against themselves and each other simply by standing still and thinking. These cause a variety of anomalies.

[/ QUOTE ] Haha. Ok maybe I shouldn't so harsh on you. I can't be sure it's my fault that I don't understand what you are saying at all. But wtf?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Greater trampeling of rights? Rights to what?

[/ QUOTE ]
Life, liberty, freedom of association, and the pursuit of happiness

[ 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 ]
You're confusing "advocates" with "can achieve in practice"

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't democracy working in Iraq, in your opinion? Or do you believe democracy is the most successful thing imaginable for their society?

[/ QUOTE ]
An overload of religious nutcases, strong ethnic splits, lack of professional groups with a tradition of ethics (Saddam corrupted the courts, the police, the army, administrators). Democracy doesn't work everywhere but it's the only proven system for maximizing stability, human rights and freedoms.

[lehighguy]

No, you can just be an anarcho-anarchist. I don't think it would work well though.