I think in a free society, people would live in communities where special laws would be made. For example I would not want to join a community in which it is allowed for a parent to abuse his children or to abuse animals. So I assume such communities will have a set of laws, perhaps even some income redistribution schemes. So how would that be different from a modern state? Is it only size?
These voluntary societies rely on contracts and voluntary cooperation. The modern state relies on aggression w/o contracts to back it.
For more detail, see https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/emergence-anarcho-capitalism/19551/346 and the two posts after it.
The essence: the state is institutionalized violation of NAP. Voluntaryism is simply the understanding that we have institutionalized this and working to end it.
A common error.
In reality, the state is compatible with NAP. Yes, thats correct. Its only that libertarians misunderstand relationship between state and property. The fact is, state owns all property in its area. How else could the case be? Given that the state can take whatever the hell it wants at any given time, only giving partial property rights to people in its area, more percisely renting rights or such, though they are misinterpreted by libertarians as being full property rights, hence libertarian confusion on how state is the aggressor.
Given this premise, it is obvious that any person in a given state’s are is in fact using state’s property and as such implicitly agreeing with the conditions of use of state’s property, hence contractual relation between person and state legislation.
Eeeew. That’s gross.
If you take that definition of the state, then yes. But such authority to own everything must be bestowed by some divine being or derived by logic, and neither is true.
When and how did the USA government become legitimate owner of the area it claims?
Haha, ridiculous idea:
It homesteaded it! By creating the illusion that it owned the land, it successfully prevented people from settling it without its permission and then it homesteaded the property.
Daniel,
Sure, the establishment of the area as property of state may not be compatible with the dreams of the Lockeans, but the practical functioning of the state is compatible with NAP
We could then just as easily argue God owns us all and that priests must control us and that they are not really initiating aggression when burning us at stakes but merely punishing us for sins, which as defiance in the face of the eternal.
I think Rothbard covered self-ownership, so we can reject the above as a form of worldly government.
Also, the government “allowing” us anything assumes objective value judgments, which don’t exist.
Are you talking about the USA government or the state in general?
If you are talking about the USA government, then how is it compatible with the NAP?
If you are talking about the state in general, then you avoided the question.
As far as the US goes, it would be disingenuous to claim that there was no force used in aqcuiring land. However…
Every concession that Native Americans made is written in contract and signed, as with Mexico, and other territories that the US bought from other states. When the first settlers came, they contracted land from England who claimed to own the Americas. The history of aggression goes back very far, and it is not so clear as to who the aggressor is and who actually “homesteaded” the land as far as NAP goes. There are some clear violations of NAP on the side of the US in its history, however the totality of the situation is not so clear from a legal standpoint.
I agree with the statement that the US state is not the legitimate owner of the land it claims, however, there is no legal precedent for such a claim. If you want to deligitimize it by way of NAP standards, you’ve got to go way back to find out who owns what, and it makes it incredibly hard to legitimize any property thereafter.
Oh God, you’re right.
Wheylous,
not to be a bugger, but if you agree with my post above and still think the things you possess are yours, you should probably pause a minute before critiquing occ/use property theory.
That’s why I said “Oh God” as in “only divine intervention may now save us.” Because humans can’t possibly work this mess out.
Though arguably righting the wrong is impossible, as the victims are dead, and you don’t have property rights once you’re dead. Hence, no property can be returned. And inheritance laws are not really AnCap.
But still. It’s a crazy concept.
And that’s all I’m saying. Either you’ve got a big web to untangle, or the US is consistent with NAP at this point.
Please clarify. Does an area of privately owned land qualify as a “community” in your opinion?
Please clarify. Are you saying you’d like to live among people who think it’s okay to invade someone’s home under certain aggressive circumstances?
Until you clarify your previous statements, I don’t see how this question even makes sense.
Apropos to this, England itself is still legally the property of the British monarch, whose claim goes back all the way to… you guessed it, the Norman Conquest of 1066.
I don’t see how this follows. How do the historical circumstances of property invalidate the concept of property per se?
BP is saying that the land we live in is actually property of long-dead Native Americans. And we have no claim for the land.
I think I might have found a loophole.
-
Property doesn’t exist after death (I am assuming here)
-
Had the unlawfulness been spotted in time, the US govt would have had to return the land, but the Native Americans are dead
-
Arguably, the US govt of the same time is also dead.
-
Both parties are dead, so US is open to homesteading
-
We own “our” land
Anyway, this question is similar to the one of corrupt contracts. If I give you land which I don’t own, and you (w/o knowing) give that land to someone else, what do we do about it? Arguably every receiver is responsible to know the source of his land and verify its validity, so the land must be given all the way back.
I am still interested in my numbered argument above, though. Because the contracts did not specify what type of government the land was given to. Arguably, the contracts are actually invalid. Thus, the Indians in reality still owned the land, and since they’re dead, the land was open to homesteading.
I am not saying that historical circumstances deligitimize property, I’m saying that the US state is consistent with NAP. If you want to take on the state by way of NAP, then you’ll have a lot of going back to do. If you don’t want to bother yourself will making moral corrections to the entirety of human history, then as far as NAP is concerned, the US is the owner of all the land it claims and only grants partial property rights to its citizens.
Wheylous, the contracts that the US signed do not allocate land to a person or group of persons, but the entity called the US government. As far as those contracts are concerned the US government still exists and still has a claim to the land.
When and how did the USA government become legitimate owner of the area it claims?
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/anarchism-and-gated-communities/19886/88
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/libertarian-argument-against-immigration/18878/30