Property breeds contempt, unjust, uneven economic societies, whether the property is managed publicly or privately, makes zero difference. At the first sign of disagreement oppression and lose will inevitably ensue, whether it is the property owner who felt justified in their action or the purchaser who did not have the means to stake claim on the property they either require or desire. Both respect logic and trade between the two parties is lost for an undeterminable amount of time, while this situation can be remedied the time spend in aggression towards each other is one where society does not benefit. Aggression will always be a part of human nature as it is in the animal world, we’ve yet to get rid of the lust to dominate, and thus a world of utopia is never existent whether it is anarcho-capitalist or communist. Personally I prefer a society in replica that is most closely related to the anarcho-capitalistic society as it uses the lust to dominate as an incentive for innovation, refinement, and efficiency to dominate the market by providing consumers with the best products at the lowest cost.
As a consumer my goal would be to find the products that make it efficient for me to provide first survival needs second production needs and thirdly ways to dominate an already effective market or one void of producers. Just as neither of the two social structures has the ability to disassemble the nature of the lust to dominate, neither will either be able to eradicate the human element of compassion. Such that even in the profit seeking self survivalist society compassion should arise the market will attract those most capable and compassionate to compete for the most efficient manner at providing compassion.
The question I pose to the anarcho-capitalistic ideologists is how to deal with an non-aggressive breaking of contract. Let us posse this scenario:
Two mutual friends decide to go into business; one has the capital with which to purchase the land to farm. The other agrees to farm the land for 3 yrs as his part of the capital as labor can be negotiable as capital. After all expenses paid profit will be split 50/50. As a way of simplifying the burocracy of decisions all decision regarding the farm are left to the labor partner but he decides to leave the land unfarmed after the 1st year. In other words he does not meet his obligation to the contract and does not find a replacement person to take over his obligation to the contract without a third party arbitrator how should this situation be resolved or how would a third party arbitrator be implemented in such a society as the anarcho-capitalistic one.
Be that the case if one society is to be pursued more rigourouly than the other a form of solving disputes must arrise looking at the senerio I am looking for how a third arbitrator would or would not be implimented to ease over or create concent such that unneccessary aggression towards portions of society are minimalized
Property (private) breeds justice, peace, prosperity, cooperation, conflict-avoidance, and civilization. Whether these property assignment rules are assigned to self-ownership over other-ownership (slavery), makes a world of difference.
Okay, when you say capital, I assume you mean money.
You keep misusing the term capital, complicating the question at hand. But if the laborer violates the contract then (a) the contract was not remunerative, and the person left to find other, more lucrative employments, and (b) his name will be tarnished. If the employment of the land is remunerative, then the initial investor can replace that laborer with another laborer (less productive laborer who’s willing to accept a lower wage rate). If the initial investor really can’t find any replacement (the hypothetical constraint you placed on this scenario), then it’s just another everyday entrepreneurial failure (land will be reallocated to more efficient uses).
One can expect some sort of rating system to emerge, similar to credit ratings, which measure the risk associated with doing business with various individuals. Other employers will not do business with individuals who are risky (low ratings). This adds a substantial cost to individuals who violate contracts (may not find future employment, or will find it at less remunerative rates).
Also, person “A” (the person who invested his money and hired person “B”, the laborer) may demand some sort of collateral before they both engage in production, as a form of security. Which means that if person “B” opts out of the contract, he suffers some sort of penalty (loses the asset he put up as collateral).
I mean, there’s a lot that can be done here; it’s a simple principle-agent analysis. I’m not an anarcho capitalists really, so I’m sure others can better answer this question.
Property on terms of respect definatly to make for a more peacefull society than a corrupt one but the lust to dominate is never eliminated as such those with the most passions in the lust to dominate not just their pot but those of others will not respect others and through non agressive manners may attempt to take adantage of respectfull persons in society how do deal with those people
A third-party arbitrator would be implemented to resolve the conflict. If you ask such a question, you clearly don’t know enough about ancap to even begin criticizing it.
A third-party arbitrator is a service thus someone should be paid for providing such a service if the initially afflicted person pays then it might seem that the arbitrator may site more favorably with the person who has initially hired him than the one who is being brought into question. How is the person in question suppose to consede to the judgment of a third arbitrator if he first violated the initial contract second does not trust the arbitrator hired by his friend the best answer I did hear is the system of rating that would arise out of those confrontations
The methods of how the contract violation would be handled was probably agreed to before the joint ownership contract was committed. That may have involved an insurance agency and third party arbitrator ahead of time.
On the note that property creates evil or unjust situations, such a statement has note real meaning. Property is neither good nor bad it just is. It’s akin to assigning a moral value to a rock or stone. Property is neither good nor bad, just as a stone is neither good or bad. It sounds like you take issue with the fact that we are plagued with a world of scarce resources. To that all i can say is, sorry. Learn to deal with it. [:)]
Lol I personally have no qualm with private property just looking at human action, such as that of a child, if you refuse it property that does not belong to it will attempt all it knows to get you to give in. it is unfortunate that adults result to the same manner when it comes to property in society.
In the end I don’t think any of it is a proplem, by having all the differences struggles and qualms brings the excitemnet out of life, I just knew by starting the topic with such a statement in a room where private property is glorified would bring people to refute it.