What is the Difference Between Territorial Property and a State?

[apehead]

@Clayton

First, there is the idea that conflict-free use of physical resources requires division of those resources, in space and time, along boundaries of exclusive use.

Granted. I far as I can tell, two individuals cannot occupy the same physical space simultaneously.

Or, more generally, if you say, “I believe that someone who has taken a wallet which is not rightfully theirs (where “rightfully” is defined by conditions A, B and C) ought to give it back” you are simply expressing a generalized preference.

And right and wrong in this statement of preference is fixed. As long as A, B, and C remain the criteria for justification (ie, your ideology does not shift), than any action will be measured by criteria A, B, C, rather than a case by case evaluation of available means/desired ends. The end will always be satisfying A, B, and C. This is the reason why I am so confused as to how praxeology and absolute moral norms can be applied simultaneously.

What makes normative statements different than other kinds of subjective preferences is that their domain of action is often physical force or violence.

I see the difference as the rigidity of absolute moral norms, over simple preferences which shift according to personal want. No matter how much I covet your wallet, Thou shalt not steal! Now, I can understand considering norms when a specific goal is in mind,

“I want to retire at age 50”

“You should invest in a Roth IRA a soon as possible”

This makes sense to me. A prescriptive statement specifically tailored to achieve your stated goal. On the other hand, a statement such as,

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”

Is prescriptive wihtout any consideration for personal preference, or specific situations. It simply is “true” with no validation, except a circular appeal to absolute laws of “right” and “wrong”.

OK Clayton, this part confused me a bit,

Property emerged from the preference of individuals to fight rather than give up what they considered to be rightfully their own. The rules that have emerged are the result of many such battles fought and either won or lost by the attacker or defender.

OK, moral norms arose out of disputes, sort of a might makes right argument. But then,

The capacity for physical violence alone is not sufficient to explain the rule set which has emerged for the negotiation of boundaries between EUZs (property boundaries).

You seem to be contradicting yourself. What then, besides victory in dispute, is the other “X factor” in the emergence of society’s (western Humanism with Christian seasoning) norms?

[I_Ryan]

@Jackson LaRose

Not without revolt.

Yeah.

@Jackson LaRose

Then I may’ve misinterpreted your point. I thought jails were the distinction.

The distinction was that, a territorial property owner gets all of his power from being able to force you to leave, whereas a state property owner gets all of his power from being able to force you to stay. Being thrown in a prison was just one example of being forced to stay somewhere on their property. Slavery is another example of that. They are two example of ways of forcing you to stay, if you know what I mean.

[apehead]

@I. Ryan

The distinction was that, a territorial property owner gets all of his power from being able to force you to leave, whereas a state property owner gets all of his power from being able to force you to stay.

But in either case, the superiority of power must belong to the property owner/state. So the distinction does not exist until the owner/state decies how they will utilize their superiority of force?

[ClaytonB]

@Clayton

First, there is the idea that conflict-free use of physical resources requires division of those resources, in space and time, along boundaries of exclusive use.

Granted. I far as I can tell, two individuals cannot occupy the same physical space simultaneously.

Or, more generally, if you say, “I believe that someone who has taken a wallet which is not rightfully theirs (where “rightfully” is defined by conditions A, B and C) ought to give it back” you are simply expressing a generalized preference.

And right and wrong in this statement of preference is fixed. As long as A, B, and C remain the criteria for justification (ie, your ideology does not shift), than any action will be measured by criteria A, B, C, rather than a case by case evaluation of available means/desired ends.

You’re focusing on the wrong issue. The point is that it is an expression of preference. The fixity of that preference is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The end will always be satisfying A, B, and C. This is the reason why I am so confused as to how praxeology and absolute moral norms can be applied simultaneously.

I don’t think the word “absolute” makes sense when applied to moral norms unless you can have “absolute” preferences for other kinds of things. What is an absolute preference for apples over oranges? I don’t think I know what that means.

What makes normative statements different than other kinds of subjective preferences is that their domain of action is often physical force or violence.

I see the difference as the rigidity of absolute moral norms, over simple preferences which shift according to personal want.

But people’s moral evaluations also change over time. I don’t see any difference. I don’t know what “rigidity” is with respect to moral norms.

No matter how much I covet your wallet, Thou shalt not steal!

So what? Someone wrote “thou shalt not steal.” You care why?

OK Clayton, this part confused me a bit,

Property emerged from the preference of individuals to fight rather than give up what they considered to be rightfully their own. The rules that have emerged are the result of many such battles fought and either won or lost by the attacker or defender.

OK, moral norms arose out of disputes, sort of a might makes right argument. But then,

The capacity for physical violence alone is not sufficient to explain the rule set which has emerged for the negotiation of boundaries between EUZs (property boundaries).

You seem to be contradicting yourself. What then, besides victory in dispute, is the other “X factor” in the emergence of society’s (western Humanism with Christian seasoning) norms?

Moral norms emerged from the resolution of disputes but moral norms do not themselves boil down to “who can win the fight?” In other words, I believe that there is a progression in the social order from one that, in early human history, was dominated by the simple question of who possesses superior physical force to today where the question is much more complicated than this. Who wins an argument is heavily dependent on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the individuals involved in the dispute. In other words, norms matter more than physical force in many cases.

Clayton -

[Dondoolee]

On the other hand, if there is some value-free distinction, I am all ears (or eyes).

Within context, value-free distinctions can be made, such as in an economic context in which we just examine material “stuff” moving from one place to another and the reults and consequences of the “stuff” on the external enivronment after such a transaction took place.

But if you were to ask what the difference between a landowner and a Prince was, distinctions can be made in a certain context. “Prince” may imply perhaps a different style of hierarchical position and power base than a landowner. To be a land owner, one must simply own land in some recognizable context; to be a prince, well that definition can be a bit more subtle and nuanced I think. It still all depends on context to be sure, to make such distinctions. But in so much as one can usefully seperate things into different catagories and than communicate the idea it does become a “legit” difference. Democrats and Republicans may share an awful lot of similarities, and may all be politicians; but they can be different, they can be usefully catagorized into those two seperate entities at times.

Context that can be communicated and effectively observerd or predictied within logical frameworks is where we can start making objective distinctions based off the framework. Everything else is all custom, aesthetic, legal theory, or some other practiced art.

[ClaytonB]

Look, there’s no piddling around about it. A prince/State/slaveholder is objectively different than a landowner/producer. The landowner/producer is not parasitic on others, the prince/State/slaveowner is. If we want to put it in evolutionary language, the prince/State/slaveholder is a cuckolder, he forces other males to devote their energy to the propagation of his genes. The landowner/producer devotes his own energy to the propagation of his own genes.

Can it possibly be more clear?

Clayton -

[apehead]

@Clayton

The point is that it is an expression of preference. The fixity of that preference is irrelevant to the point I was making.

OK, fair enough.

What is an absolute preference for apples over oranges? I don’t think I know what that means.

Sorry for the confusion. Let’s use your analogy:

An absolute preference for apples over oranges would read something like this:

It is right to prefer apples.

It is wrong not to prefer apples.

Doesn’t matter what you are trying to accomplish, it is always a correct action to prefer apples. Want to make orange juice? Want some strawberry shortcake? Then you are wrong. Apples are what you should want, in any circumstance (according to the Appleist ideology). Call this tenant “A” of Appleism. Now among Appleists, there are different factions. The Red Appleists, and the Green Appleists. They disagree on what constitutes “true” apples. Say we are Red Appleists. Red apples are the “true” apples in any case, making the green apples “false” apples. Call this tenant “B” of Red Appleism. Now even among the Red Appleists there is some disagreement about what constitutes “true” apples. There is the Braeburnite sect of Red Appleism, and the Red Deliciousite sect of Red Appleism. We are Red Deliciousites. We have faith that no matter what may happen, it is “truth” that we have the actual knowledge of the true nature of the Apple, and it is Red Delicious only, making all other varieties of Red apples “Un-Apples”. Call this tenant “C” of the Red Deliciousite sect of Red Appleism.

Whew! OK, now if so, so what?

Now you are taking conformity to criterias A, B, and C as “right”, and non-conformity as “wrong”, in any circumstance. Starving in a room with only green apples? It’s still wrong to do. It is the primacy of the doctrine, regardless of circumstances, which makes it absolute; a “law” if you will (in the sense of a scientific law).

But people’s moral evaluations also change over time. I don’t see any difference. I don’t know what “rigidity” is with respect to moral norms.

An analogy I can think of is Stirner’s idea of “revolution” vs. “insurrection”. Revolution is akin to the conversion you mentioned. The rules may change, but the fact that there are rules at all is not questioned. Moral agnosticism is more like insurrection. It is the direct questioning of why there are rules, rather than what the rules are. Make sense?

Who wins an argument is heavily dependent on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the individuals involved in the dispute. In other words, norms matter more than physical force in many cases.

But this begs the question,

How did the norms of today come to be accepted? How are they enforced?

You seem to be implying that force is necessary to adopt norms, and to maintain them, but for some reason, you are reluctant to commit to this notion. Why?

[apehead]

Clayton,

You can see no reciprocity between Lord and Serf? Check this out:

Look, there’s no piddling around about it. A Capitalist/boss/bourgeois is objectively different than a worker/wage slave/proletariat. The worker/wage slave/proletariat is not parasitic on others, the Capitalist/boss/bourgeois is. If we want to put it in evolutionary language, the Capitalist/boss/bourgeois is a cuckolder, he forces other males to devote their energy to the propagation of his genes. The worker/wage slave/proletariat devotes his own energy to the propagation of his own genes.

Can it possibly be more clear?

Jackson -

This is a nothing but a fantastical appeal to emotion. Honestly, I expected better.

[liberty_student]

Jackson, your rewrite changes the context. Not your best work.

[apehead]

@Liberty Student

Jackson, your rewrite changes the context.

How so?

Not your best work.

LOL, yeah, probably deserve that one…

[ClaytonB]

This is a nothing but a fantastical appeal to emotion. Honestly, I expected better.

There is no appeal to emotion whatsoever. The devotion of the energies of some individuals to the propagation of the genes of other individuals is objectively definable as genetic parasitism or cuckoldry. If I knock up your wife without your knowledge and you put 18 years into raising my son, I have cuckolded you, I have tricked you into propagating my genes. There’s nothing emotional about that.

Clayton -

[apehead]

Clayton,

I understand, but to claim that the state is simply a parasite is being far too simplistic. Following this line of reasoning, we may just as easily claim that capitalists are parasites on the workers (which is what my satirical paraphrase was meant to convey). This vague reductionism seems to be an appeal to a more visceral, emotional, reactionary part of the mind, like almost all of the left’s rhetoric.

Why don’t you consider land-owners “parasites”? What of landlords?

Why do you not consider employers cuckold as well?

If there is a clear dichotomy, please describe the transition point at which a landowner becomes a prince, and a share-cropper becomes a slave. What is the distinction, beside some vague claim of parasitism?

[Angurse]

I understand, but to claim that the state is simply a parasite is being far too simplistic. Following this line of reasoning, we may just as easily claim that capitalists are parasites on the workers (which is what my satirical paraphrase was meant to convey). This vague reductionism seems to be an appeal to a more visceral, emotional, reactionary part of the mind, like almost all of the left’s rhetoric.

That line of reasoning fails as one relationship is voluntary while the other isn’t.

[I_Ryan]

@Jackson LaRose

But in either case, the superiority of power must belong to the property owner/state. So the distinction does not exist until the owner/state decies how they will utilize their superiority of force?

Yeah, and the whole argument of anarcho-capitalism is that it would always be a better idea for somebody to use their power in the first way (as a territorial property owner) instead of in the second way (as a state property owner), provided that they have a long enough time horizon, don’t have any desires like wanting to kill people as an end in itself, and so on.

[Stranger]

A state is a form of territorial property. There is nothing particularly interesting about states other than their extremely large economic scale allowed their owners to seize the power of government sometime in the 16-17th centuries, and thus what we today call The State is both a state and a government; not only does the state provide territorial goods, it also maintains itself as a monopoly of justice and law.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

A prince/State/slaveholder is objectively different than a landowner/producer. The landowner/producer is not parasitic on others, the prince/State/slaveowner is.

Surely you’re not including feudal landowners in this description?

[liberty_student]

@Jackson LaRose

@Liberty Student

Jackson, your rewrite changes the context.

How so?

@Angurse

That line of reasoning fails as one relationship is voluntary while the other isn’t.

[z1235]

@Angurse

That line of reasoning fails as one relationship is voluntary while the other isn’t.

Most X* would gladly let you leave if you don’t like their terms (laws, bylaws, rules). No X would allow you to set your own rules on (any part of) their land.

*X = king, lord, state, landowner, capitalist, corporation, co-op, etc.

[Dondoolee]

A prince/State/slaveholder is objectively different than a landowner/producer. The landowner/producer is not parasitic on others, the prince/State/slaveowner is.

A prince is objectively different from a land owner within various language games and context. In the context of capitalistic property theory and language, they are objectively different, in the context of some random dude who hates them both equally because they both like the color red, are of nationality X, or whatever; or under the court of law in country Y there is perhaps no real difference.

“Prince”, “landowner”, etc these are legal and customary words that is all, they are not mystical or monolithic terms. As far as the socio-biological narritives, they are as meaningful as any other narritive I could concoct. Science makes a wonderful employee, but an awful owner. The narrative is of no concern unless it puts me in a position to manipulate the data to my advantage, it does no such thing in this case.

[ClaytonB]

@William: Yes, I am using words like “prince” and “landowner” in a very high-level way which is subject to a great deal of interpretation. However, the difference between landowner and prince is no more fuzzy than the difference between aggressor and victim. Sure, in the boundary cases it can get complicated but these words all have well-understood meanings.

Clayton -