First acquisition (AC question)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[/ QUOTE ] The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[ QUOTE ]

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?



No.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how you are able to define property without being able to also define negating of property using the same method.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[/ QUOTE ] The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain can be easily predicted to become ever more frequent under a state. If you have the power to legally seize other people's property, you will tend to use it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?



No.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how you are able to define property without being able to also define negating of property using the same method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no ED in ACism.

Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing stopping X, M, N and O from pooling their resources voluntarily to share these costs, mitigate risk, achieve economies of scale in provision of defense, etc.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of exactly such an organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

[/ QUOTE ] That one was kinda a gimme. Do you enjoy paying for other peoples misteps provided it's voluntary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep doing it, therefore I must feel that it is beneficial. I trade some EV for lower variance.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a fallacy here that is extremely common in arguments against hypothetical AC scenarios. Yes, there will be thugs. However, you can't just assume the populace has the same preferences, thought processes, and tolerances; AC can't simply be imposed upon a bunch of people who don't understand it or want it (the entire idea of imposing it is self-contradicting). So, if we're in a scenario where AC is in effect, we have to assume that there is a large segment of the population that understands freedom, accepts the responsibilities, respects property rights, etc. In this case any tinpot wannabe who tries to design such a system will be laughed at (at best), run out of town on a rail, or tarred and feathered. They aren't going to just roll over.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no ED in ACism.

Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

[bisonbison]

Guys, if there's no erectile disfunction in AC, you may have a chance of making this happen.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ] So the hubub is about replacing one arbitrary definition of property to a different arbitrary definition one? I'm not very excited about that.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

[/ QUOTE ] I am both in possesion and control of my TV. You ACist and your jackbooted thuggery. How can something belong to someone else if they don't have possesion or control?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a fallacy here that is extremely common in arguments against hypothetical AC scenarios. Yes, there will be thugs. However, you can't just assume the populace has the same preferences, thought processes, and tolerances; AC can't simply be imposed upon a bunch of people who don't understand it or want it (the entire idea of imposing it is self-contradicting). So, if we're in a scenario where AC is in effect, we have to assume that there is a large segment of the population that understands freedom, accepts the responsibilities, respects property rights, etc. In this case any tinpot wannabe who tries to design such a system will be laughed at (at best), run out of town on a rail, or tarred and feathered. They aren't going to just roll over.

[/ QUOTE ]So these are people that want to minimize costs over war, but will rise to war at systems designed to take slight advangtage of them.