A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]

false. no government does imply something else, whether de facto or by principle. What does no government mean otherwise?

The absence of government is not a description of anarchy until youve defined government. The definition of government will leave clear implications for how anarchy must be if the one society exists in contrast to the other. Explain how society can play out without a government and by what measures can the society be perverted to be considered under government rule again?

There must be clear lines to call one society governed by another not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of obvious gibberish that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it does. this response you're giving now is gibberish and has nothing to do with what i said.

i'll repeat, you write: "It doesn't imply anything about property."

and my response, in more detail, is that anarchy assumes property of individuality and assumes some variety of property extension. The use of air, the use of the land you stand on, etc.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other?

How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure?

[/ QUOTE ]
Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can".

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other?

How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure?

[/ QUOTE ]
Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can".

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ] Collective action and willingness to coerce will not go away because of anarchy; they are guaranteed under all systems as long as humans are willing to engage in them, which appears to be always. The real difference is that under 'statism' they are institutionalized, so people use bargaining and the possibility of force; these things can be done/expressed without actual violence, contra anarchy, where actual violence will be used.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I have in mind the classics. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon were calling themselves anarchists, pure and simple. And it was the latter who famously proclaimed that property is theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

If property is theft, who is being robbed? And what are they being robbed OF, exactly?

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can".

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then what did you mean by:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other?

How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not guaranteed that the anarcho-socialist will want to walk on the capitalist's land, nor is he doing so with power obtained through forced taxation.
And I don't think anyone is "defining" anarchism as a situation in which this necessarily occurs. However conflict between those who are inclined toward a belief in capitalist property rights and those who aren't would not be easily solvable. E.g.:
"Get off my land"
"You can't, like, own land, man. I'm just getting some drinking water"
"Alright, I'm going to physically force you off."
"If you attack me I'm going to defend myself."
I'm not saying that this is a reason anarchism can't work, just that it can't work under some unified moral system such as natural rights.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ] Collective action and willingness to coerce will not go away because of anarchy; they are guaranteed under all systems as long as humans are willing to engage in them, which appears to be always. The real difference is that under 'statism' they are institutionalized, so people use bargaining and the possibility of force; these things can be done/expressed without actual violence, contra anarchy, where actual violence will be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really nice post.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Collective action and willingness to coerce will not go away because of anarchy; they are guaranteed under all systems as long as humans are willing to engage in them, which appears to be always.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying a stateless society is not practically possible or rather that any occurrence of anarchy would very soon after dissolve into a state. nothing wrong with that view but that doesnt take away from points about what society is like while we still define that society as anarchic.

[ QUOTE ]
The real difference is that under 'statism' they are institutionalized, so people use bargaining and the possibility of force; these things can be done/expressed without actual violence, contra anarchy, where actual violence will be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one, i would say people have more bargaining power when things aren't institutionally fixed. Also bargaining is more subjective than you make seem and very dependent on the structure of the institution. The majority have bargaining power under democracy, the head of state has all the bargaining power under dictatorship, etc. Anarchists aren't satisfied until bargaining comes down to the individual.

Aside, if i take your assumption and intended definition that institutions allow for more bargaining, this doesn't mean institutions are the only threat of violence. Because of this, I dont get what you mean by "actual violence". Someone can murder you today, state or no state. He can trample on you regardless to what the state says. "Actual violence" outside of government exists regardless and theres no reason state officials can't act outside of the bargained terms. The question would be whether government agencies of protection against this violence are more efficient than private agencies.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that this is a reason anarchism can't work, just that it can't work under some unified moral system such as natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it could work under a system of soley natural rights. I posted the OP and said i agreed with article's conclusion.

However, anarchy must have certain bounds by which we can call the society anarchic. Further there are certain things implied by anarchy if we take away the propositions that are reduced to absurdities. Like if we say no one has a right to property of any kind. This would mean no one has a right to breathe, stand on land or physically consume energy to produce actions.

[foal]

ah ok, I misunderstood what you were saying I guess. I thought you were suggesting that if people could simply walk onto other people's land without permission that the society would be coersive or not anarchist.