|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So I'd never actually thought about this too much before but doesn't the NAP basically destroy the concept of private property? Like, if the one rule is that you can't initiate force, how exactly would you be able to kick people off your land if they are just peacefully hanging out? Because ancaps redefine force to mean conversion of property and only that. Remember, there are no human rights in ancap-world, only property rights. It is de facto legal to rape or murder homeless people or orphans for fun, because as moneyless beings they have no right to protection, and the only response ancaps have to this horror is that such crimes wouldn't happen because it would hurt the prep's reputation. As if (1) there's anyone in libertopia who would bother investigating dead vagrants for free, and (2) if reputation were a reliable deterrent to criminals then why do DROs even have a market for their police services?
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Hopefully then he comes to the conclusion that property is theft in the same way that taxation is theft, and becomes a left-anarchist instead of a right-anarchist. He actually ended up being a (statist) socialist in all but name really, sees the many flaws capitalism has and the need for a government to fix or prevent issues. Though still has a bit to go on the social side, definitely leftist or atleast left of center but is against federal hate crime laws for example last I checked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Ah but see by kicking them off your land you're not initiating force, you're acting in self-defense by defending your property since clearly they are the aggressors. I know the exact article you're talking about. Annoys me that I can't find it either. But I did come across these gems in my search: quote:Prohibits All Pollution – As I noted in my last post, Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world. And this is deeply implausible. The third one I especially like because his example of Russian roulette is actually an amazing one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
quote:Prohibits All Pollution – As I noted in my last post, Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world. And this is deeply implausible. Whenever I am reading a long discussion of Rothbard's views, if I just come across it while skimming and don't know the source at first I can never tell whether it is written by a supporter or detractor. It takes something like the bolded sentence to realize that it's a criticism, I'm so used to reading Rothbardites just admitting wild poo poo without any pretense of concern. "Oh yeah, internal combustion engines are totally committing aggression against me." I could see a Rothbardite glibly conceding that on his way to writing a backhanded, diffident blog post in defense of apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:I know the exact article you're talking about. Annoys me that I can't find it either. Found it. From this thread even. Unlearning posted:Wow, that was pretty incredible stuff. I knew he was bad but not that bad. Thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Not what I said. I said that if a certain group people were worse off, then it is because people simply don't care enough. I still believe that people in general would be better off, and not just people are already well off. I'm still kind of wondering what happens to orphans, to the homeless, to those bankrupted by unexpected events like illness or natural disaster, to the mentally ill, to the handicapped, and basically to anyone else who either cannot afford to or is not mentally competent to sign a contract with a DRO. Because it sounds like it'd be de facto legal to rob, beat, or kill them and no one will protect their lives or property or investigate crimes against them; and I'm really wondering what the Libertarian answer to prevent that is or why I should support a society like that where orphans are free game for rapists and murders, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because it sounds like it'd be de facto legal to rob, beat, or kill them and no one will protect their lives or property or investigate crimes against them; and I'm really wondering what the Libertarian answer to prevent that is or why I should support a society like that where orphans are free game for rapists and murders, thanks! I didn't really read the Jrodefeld threat beyond his first post because I already couldn't handle how batshit he was. But it so happened that the exact thing that made me stop reading was his answer to your question! Jrod posted:I am a libertarian market anarchist. I believe in individual self ownership. What that means is that each of us have the right to determine the use of the scarce resource in our physical bodies. If we have a property right in our own bodies, then we should not have the right to use aggression against the physical body of another. For example, assault, rape and kidnapping are obviously illegitimate violations of self ownership. All civilized people accept the principle, I believe. In fact, I consider it an irrefutable axiom. The act of argumentation presupposes the right to exclusive control over ones body and mind. What he's saying is that he doesn't conceive of people as having a natural right to bodily autonomy, a right to be secure from arbitrary physical abuse. No, he clearly believes that the only right that exists is the right to property, and any other right a person might happen to have derives from that. Murdering a person for no reason at all isn't prima facie wrong, it's wrong because they own their own body and murdering them is aggression against their self-property. I quit reading there because it was too horrible to contemplate that he existed. edit- to clarify you're right that you could murder all those people and get away with it, I'm just saying that I think the answer is yet another return to the universal answer of "everybody else would spontaneously and voluntarily ostracize people who murdered the helpless because that's transgression against the moral imperative of nonaggression" Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:edit- to clarify you're right that you could murder all those people and get away with it, I'm just saying that I think the answer is yet another return to the universal answer of "everybody else would spontaneously and voluntarily ostracize people who murdered the helpless because that's transgression against the moral imperative of nonaggression" Yeah I get that that's their answer, but (even ignoring the massive counterexample of all human history where tons of people do business with criminals, join the mafia, support the KKK, etc), it still raises the question: if ostracism and reputation are such ironclad guarantors of nonaggression, why is there even a market for the policing and enforcement functions of DROs? Who would pay for police protection when apparently everyone is too conscious of getting bad Yelp reviews to dare commit a crime? Heck, the crime doesn't even have involve malice aforethought. I drive drunk and hit a homeless guy. I guess I can just drive off and never worry about it again! Or if I'm really afraid that he could go get DRO coverage on a contingency basis to sue me, I could just whip out my smartphone, use reverse image search to confirm that he's on the DROs' public list of non-covered unpersons, then back my car over him a few times to make sure. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I get that that's their answer, but (even ignoring the massive counterexample of all human history where tons of people do business with criminals, join the mafia, support the KKK, etc), I think it was Rothbard who argued that the state was the real mafia, and furthermore that La Cosa Nostra are actually pretty good guys all things considered. Like here's this review of Goodfellas he wrote for Lew Rockwell. The interesting thing, which I think people have noted earlier in the thread, is that the mafia is exactly a DRO. Since criminals can't rely on the state for protection, they have to band together for mutual protection against predators. I would say organized crime outfits are the best real-life model for how a DRO would actually behave in a stateless society--aggressively crushing rival organizations to control market share, forcing clients in their territory to buy coverage under the threat of deadly violence whether they wanted it or not, setting exorbitant membership fees and rates, etc. quote:it still raises the question: if ostracism and reputation are such ironclad guarantors of nonaggression, why is there even a market for the policing and enforcement functions of DROs? I think it just springs from an instinctive inability to completely commit intellectually to an idea that obviously doesn't work. The voluntaryist says that we don't need roofs over our heads, because if we tore them all down we'd find that it was the roofs themselves that cause all the bad weather! When somebody points out that he's insane, he allows that maybe after we've torn down all the shelter we could build a lovely lean-to just in case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Found it. From this thread even. This essay is great. The writer articulates the thought process in my head when I posted those questions earlier. Also, he really ties together the central hypocrisy of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism by pointing out that all property ownership derives from violence, the exact problem that libertarians/an-caps have with governments. Couldn't the same arguments they apply as a basis for their hatred of government be equally applied to the concept of property? Another issue that is completely unclear to me about An-Cap Land is how to determine what property is "legitimately" owned? Let's say that I have a property line dispute with my neighbor. Who gets the final say in where that line is drawn? If I say I own this piece of land but my neighbor disagrees and wanders on over, can I just murder them? Seems like it would be in my best interest since then they could no longer make a claim against my land with their DRO and I would have been within my rights to defend myself from this vile aggression against my property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This essay is great. The writer articulates the thought process in my head when I posted those questions earlier. Also, he really ties together the central hypocrisy of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism by pointing out that all property ownership derives from violence, the exact problem that libertarians/an-caps have with governments. Couldn't the same arguments they apply as a basis for their hatred of government be equally applied to the concept of property? The instant you don't get what you want, you have been governed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Another issue that is completely unclear to me about An-Cap Land is how to determine what property is "legitimately" owned? Let's say that I have a property line dispute with my neighbor. Who gets the final say in where that line is drawn? If I say I own this piece of land but my neighbor disagrees and wanders on over, can I just murder them? Seems like it would be in my best interest since then they could no longer make a claim against my land with their DRO and I would have been within my rights to defend myself from this vile aggression against my property. None of these answers imply that they produce a good society, but this is the obvious result of not having a government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Could you give me the an-cap answer to the criticism that their ideal society is one which makes it de facto legal to rob, beat, or murder anyone too poor or mentally ill to afford DRO protection? Because it kinda seems that that would be a bad society, and it also heavily implies that in Libertarian morality human rights don't exist and only property rights do since the system is set up such that already owning property is a prerequisite to actually having a right to live free from coercion and keep the products of your labor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Without taxes or red tape there will be more economic growth so no one will actually be poor any more. Also there will be firms who will cater to all income levels because that's just how an unfettered free market works. Just remember that anything bad right now is because of government, anything good right now is because of the market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Without taxes or red tape there will be more economic growth so no one will actually be poor any more. Also there will be firms who will cater to all income levels because that's just how an unfettered free market works. These are the two standard answers for anything that otherwise might present a troublesome contradiction to libertarian/an-cap wank: "Well that wouldn't happen," or, "that's only due to State interference."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:Answers in order: Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is legitimately owned (note: this is true with a government, the government will just use force against people who disagree with them). There is no final say. You can murder them, but maybe there will be repercussions from it? (also true with a government). Murdering someone might be in your best interests, or it might not, answering that question requires a huge amount of assumptions (also true with a government). 1) Hahaha yeah I guess that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at is that there is a single arbiter (the government) that determines what the property lines are, who owns each parcel, and has a clear method for dealing with disputes. In a competing system of DRO's, there is no arbiter and property is "owned" by whoever controls enough force to hold it. 2) If there is no final arbiter of who legitimately owns property, as you say, then how does one determine who is initiating force against whom? This is exactly the issue with the NAP, especially as applied to property rights - that it is entirely dependent on point of view. 3) Or maybe not since there is no police, government or law to administer the repercussions. 4)True, the assumption is that I live in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society that says its perfectly moral to commit violent acts against someone who initiates "force" against my property and that ownership of this property is, at best, vaguely defined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
A while back (possibly from a link in this thread) I read a multi-part "interview" with Hoppe that was compiled from quotes and writings he'd done. I've been trying to find it again with no success; anybody know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Here is part 1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:1) Hahaha yeah I guess that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at is that there is a single arbiter (the government) that determines what the property lines are, who owns each parcel, and has a clear method for dealing with disputes. In a competing system of DRO's, there is no arbiter and property is "owned" by whoever controls enough force to hold it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Does anyone have a copy of that post from a goon libertarian from like 10 years ago about how his mother initiated force against him so he had to push her down stairs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Does anyone have a copy of that post from a goon libertarian from like 10 years ago about how his mother initiated force against him so he had to push her down stairs? Grandmother, actually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
No, not the ICQ pranks, it was libertarian poster who tried to brag about how he fought back against his mother initiating force. I think the username started with "Lord" something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:I only answered your questions to illustrate how dumb they were, and how they were just demonstrating the fact that you (and others here) haven't thought about this at all, so I'm confused that you replied and that you replied in this format. Do you think any of my answers are wrong? I can't actually see a contradiction here. Most of them were libertarian non-answers, hence the response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Most of them were libertarian non-answers, hence the response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is legitimately owned You know how terrible this is right? This is property as a matter of will. Throw in "Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is" and it'd be hat trick of terrible. Edit NVM: you're against an-caps, I couldn't tell if you're for this or against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This is property as a matter of will. Throw in "Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is" and it'd be hat trick of terrible. twodot posted:I'm anti-an-cap
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:So, we seem to be on track for my contention that most people in this thread are putting little or no efforts into their posts. Also, "Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is legitimately owned" is not being thrown into anarchy. It's a intrinsic quality that is true of literally any society that doesn't involve mind control. Disputes can only exist when people disagree over what property is legitimately owned. The fact that we have a civil law system should tell you that even with our government, people still decide for themselves who owns what. The only difference is that with a government, the government will occasionally (not even frequently, enlisting government intervention is often quite expensive) intervene to resolve disputes. Now I think it's generally a good idea to have a central entity to resolve disputes, but the government certainly never stops anyone from thinking "Hey, I own the thing that that jerk has over there". I don't understand this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Really it's just hard to tell anymore. There are so many little factions and denominations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, not the ICQ pranks, it was libertarian poster who tried to brag about how he fought back against his mother initiating force. I think the username started with "Lord" something. Lord Kenneth
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because it sounds like it'd be de facto legal to rob, beat, or kill them and no one will protect their lives or property or investigate crimes against them; and I'm really wondering what the Libertarian answer to prevent that is or why I should support a society like that where orphans are free game for rapists and murders, thanks! Deep down inside, past the rhetoric, a lot of conservative libertarians see the handicapped/infirm/etc as the excrement and discharge of humanity and would love to live in Libertopia to finally purge the undesirables who have subsisted so long by suckling on the teat of the State, using your "stolen" money to prop up the weak. Fulfill your deepest desires and power fantasies without anyone to say otherwise, like buying a nuke to finally glass Africa/Middle East or mowing down the disabled with a machine gun or slapping the poo poo out of your multiple wives and sex slaves to put them in their place. Stop trying to interpret libertarianism through the lens of compassion/humaneness; it makes a lot more sense when you look at it through a worldview of scorn, sociopathy, Social Darwinism, hierarchy, and hatred of others. [E]: Also, there seems to be a ton of rhetoric like "people SHOULDN'T be violent with one another due to respect for NAP". In theory, maybe, but people have been murdering and raping others with or without a State authority for a long, long time. So, if someone guns my kid down in Libertopia, do I have the right to kill him in return? What if I wanted to carry out traditional Chinese legalist policy by murdering three generations of the killer's clan? Couldn't another family member of the killer also justify murdering me for aggression? What stops the whole thing from devolving into Mad Max land where everyone decides to gently caress dealing with cumbersome DROs and just slaughter everyone in their territory to ensure their freedom from the control of DROs? Lastly, what do Libertarians make of failed states like Somalia or Afghanistan? They seem to have a lot of the same patterns such as violence and instability compared to anywhere else with a functioning state apparatus. Hmmmmmmm, makes you think. So many questions! 
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
There are essays on Mises.org extolling the successes of Somalia after the collapse of the state and saying that it's now thriving compared to its state-led status in previous decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:So, if someone guns my kid down in Libertopia, do I have the right to kill him in return? What if I wanted to carry out traditional Chinese legalist policy by murdering three generations of the killer's clan? Couldn't another family member of the killer also justify murdering me for aggression? What stops the whole thing from devolving into Mad Max land where everyone decides to gently caress dealing with cumbersome DROs and just slaughter everyone in their territory to ensure their freedom from the control of DROs? At this point, I feel prepared to make a general assertion. If you think you have a criticism, but that criticism is phrased in the form of a question, it is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:More dumb questions, anarchies do not offer rights, if your Libertopia is something other than an anarchy, then the answer depends on how you are defining Libertopia. If you murdered three generations of someone's family, probably something would happen, what exactly would happen would depend on about a billion unstated details. Yes. The an-cap answer here is that most people don't want to live in Mad Max land, so they'll go through significant effort to avoid it, though clearly if enough people do want a Mad Max society, they can pull the rest down with them. Rhetorical questions are still A Thing in debates, although that might be a surprise to you personally. What I'm essentially asserting is that Libertopia (I'm presuming Libertarians are trying to build a new stable society) would naturally devolve into anarchy whether people want anarchy or not. The structure is not there to discourage Mad Max-style anarchism; in fact, it's precisely the opposite. Either the vast majority of humanity would be enslaved to the rule of the DROs and those at the top who control them indefinitely or it would dissolve into bloodshed and anarchy. People don't generally take de facto inter-generational slavery and subjugation by oppressors very well for too long. Libertarians don't seem to understand that economic coercion is still (systemic) oppression, even if people willingly choose to submit to slavery (as opposed to death or total societal exclusion). Neither Libertopia nor the anarchy that would most likely follow are acceptable outcomes. They both represent a massive step backward for human civilization. Getting rid of national governments and replacing them with numerous DROs would Balkanize and reduce national and international society into local fiefdoms and tribalist company towns rigidly controlled by economic elites. Feudalism versus total anarchy are not good choices. As hyperbolic as that sounds, "as long as I can become a Also, yes, I understand there are no rights under anarchy, but there is the Libertarian assertion you still have the right to defend yourself against aggression in addition to the self-ownership principle. It may not be real or backed up by the force of law, but according to Libertarians these are still basic axiomatic principles. Would self-ownership not be considered a right in the Libertarian lens? ^That is an actual question, not a rhetorical question as an assertion, just FYI. tl;dr Conservative Libertarianism is a half-baked wishful theory that will eventually get us all killed or enslaved taken to its conclusion and can easily dissolve into violence and strife. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:There are essays on Mises.org extolling the successes of Somalia after the collapse of the state and saying that it's now thriving compared to its state-led status in previous decades. Phone posting but let me just say that while there are bastions of stability and civilization in Somalia they are completely due to a 'state' setting up shop, collecting taxes, and policing the area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Phone posting but let me just say that while there are bastions of stability and civilization in Somalia they are completely due to a 'state' setting up shop, collecting taxes, and policing the area. Pretty much this. After the end of primitive communism with the invention of agriculture allowing people to stop migrating for food and settle down, the State was an additional invention needed to deal with the issue of excess stored resources (ie grain) and the issue of distribution of resources (ie the economy, even if it wasn't recognized as such then and that the theory for modern economics to explain this properly didn't show up until fairly recently). That's how the political class originally formed. In other words, the State is literally part and parcel of human civilization. When you get rid of that State, there then exists a political vacuum that, by nature, needs to be filled. Whether its DROs or local warlords vying for control, it's quite literally human civilization::State, QED. (I'm pointing this out because Libertarians/An-Caps see the State as a malignant influence that should be stripped down to almost nothing. I assert the opposite: that the State is the glue that binds modern civilization together, re: Rousseau's The Social Contract.) Libertarians, of course, cannot abide by this. So, like Creationists and other pseudo-scientists, they redefine words and move goal-posts until reality can be made to fit theory, rather than the other way around. In my view, DROs are absolutely State entities (albeit half-baked and inevitably authoritarian), just not recognized as such by Libertarians. How many Libertarians actually take a class in anthropology in addition to economics, by the way? I think that gap in knowledge is really telling. vvvv Right, which is why I mentioned in an above post that the ideal Libertopia would essentially be feudalist in the end. I was going to add in a detail about Libertarians wanting to turn the clock back to 1500 AD before the rise of the modern state, but I left it out. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I think you're sort of misunderstanding the An-Cap position, at least as I interpret it. The kind of state they're objecting to is the modern state that developed out of the absolutist monarchies of early modern Europe and the city state of renaissance Italy (and which was modelled in part on the Greek city states of antiquity). If you take Hans Herman-Hoppe, for instance, he clearly doesn't oppose the idea of having armed men in positions of authority (which seems to be your working definition of a state). He just opposes the idea of a 'public' government. He'd prefer a private (i.e. monarchical) government that doesn't have a monopoly on violence. Such a system has existed in the past, it's called "feudalism". Government is held privately by local land owners and political authority is based on personal networks rather than geographic regions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:Rhetorical questions are still A Thing in debates, although that might be a surprise to you personally. quote:What I'm essentially asserting is that Libertopia (I'm presuming Libertarians are trying to build a new stable society) would naturally devolve into anarchy whether people want anarchy or not. The structure is not there to discourage Mad Max-style anarchism; in fact, it's precisely the opposite. quote:Would self-ownership not be considered a right in the Libertarian lens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I get that that's their answer, but (even ignoring the massive counterexample of all human history where tons of people do business with criminals, join the mafia, support the KKK, etc), it still raises the question: if ostracism and reputation are such ironclad guarantors of nonaggression, why is there even a market for the policing and enforcement functions of DROs? Who would pay for police protection when apparently everyone is too conscious of getting bad Yelp reviews to dare commit a crime? You only have to look at Yelp to see the likely trajectory of any reputation system. quote:I have had dozens of attorneys ask me about the benefit of posting reviews on Yelp. Quite honestly, I cannot recommend it at this time. I have had far too many attorneys tell me how they received their first negative review on Yelp followed quickly by a sales call asking if they wanted to advertise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't there is such a thing as "the Libertarian lens", and I think a smart an-cap would tell you that the concept of rights in the absence of a state is stupid. That said there is definitely a lot of popular libertarians of various sorts that would say that self-ownership is a right. I don't think a "smart" An-Cap would agree. I don't see how Capitalism can exist without the concept of Property Rights. Without them, the only things you "own" are things that you can physically defend. Money would have no value, gold or otherwise, without property rights to both protect it and the things you acquire with it. If the smart An-Cap realizes there are no rights in the absence of a State, then surely his position completely falls apart? Edit: Actually, twodot, I'm curious. I know you are anti-an-cap, but I don't think I've seen you say where you think its failings are and why it doesn't work. You're telling us these are all dumb critiques of it, so I'd like to hear some good ones. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:I don't think a "smart" An-Cap would agree. I don't see how Capitalism can exist without the concept of Property Rights. Without them, the only things you "own" are things that you can physically defend. Money would have no value, gold or otherwise, without property rights to both protect it and the things you acquire with it. If the smart An-Cap realizes there are no rights in the absence of a State, then surely his position completely falls apart? quote:Edit: Actually, twodot, I'm curious. I know you are anti-an-cap, but I don't think I've seen you say where you think its failings are and why it doesn't work. You're telling us these are all dumb critiques of it, so I'd like to hear some good ones. The Golden Age is a book series that has a minimalist state and an interesting treatment of organized shunning, where a character is shunned while in the middle of a space elevator, and the owner of the space elevator decides the character is no longer welcome, and should leave immediately, but he rather not spend the energy it would take to actually move him through the space elevator forcing him to walk down (there's stairs).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:51
|
|