If so, so what? As you state here,
So what is it you are trying to say?
If you don’t care about those conclusions, I can’t help you.
What don’t you understand? Do you think that those two paragraphs contradict each other?
If I start charging a fee to stay at my house, you can either:
Stay and Pay
Stay and Resist
Leave
So by staying and not revolting, you are paying. You agree to the arangement, regardless of how disagreeable you may find it.
Hm, I’m impressed. (seriously)
And one must rely on ideological tenants to determine which uses of force would be just (not aggression) and unjust (aggression). So the struggle of Anarcho-Capitalism against other forms of governance is strictly an ideological one (aggregate of societal interaction {market} as enforcer of norms vs. x as enforcer of norms.)
I understand, yet disagree in most cases. At least where I live, I may choose to liberate myself from my landlord by moving. Granted, this is not always the case (Dredd Scott, North Korea, etc.).
+1. As you stated earlier, I too hold that manoralism and tribalism are not too far removed from our “advanced rebublics”.
I. Ryan,
No, I don’t find them contradictory, but rather “mutually negating”. To paraphase,
“An-cap norms do not always and necessarily act as a means to satisfy goals, but they do sometimes.”
And sometimes it rains, but sometimes it doesn’t.
This seems rather self-evident and non-controversial, to the point of questioning why one would bother to type it. I repeat,
If so, so what?
I have no idea what that means.
I explained in my post where exactly anarcho-capitalism breaks down, which means that I said a lot more than just that it is would be correct means for some people, but not for others. And I already explained the importance of that point, which was that nothing less significant than whether there can even be a society depends on the former people being the majority, and the latter people being the minority.
It would be ridiculous to say that anarcho-capitalism is always the correct means for everybody no matter what, because it is possible that there could be people who have such high time preferences, that they would, with all of the knowledge in the world at their disposal, still decide to kill, steal, rape, or whatever. But nothing less significant than whether there can even be a society depends on people like that being the minority.
I thought most libertarians agreed that aggression is the initiation of force. So, self defense doesn’t count as aggression. But stabbing or stealing from innocent people does.
[edit] On pacifism - as society grows in wealth, people become interdependent on each other’s property rights. I.e., I want everyone to have secure property rights so they can keep the good stuff coming. Additionally, the opportunity cost of crime increases because jobs pay better than theft. So there’s even less reason to need to defend yourself.
I’m not comitted to pacifism, but there are good reasons why a pacifist could get by really easily in an advanced capitalist society.
Would you consider it a form of resistance if I tried to convince the rest of the household that I was right?
While I’d consider it within your rights, as property-owner, to start charging a fee at any given time, I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to do so. Typically there’s some sort of explicit agreement at work, even if it’s strictly verbal in nature. “Sure, you can stay here for [as long as you like/X days/weeks/months/years] without having to pay anything”. Even a “We’ll see how it goes” is explicit IMO.
Being “born into” a certain state, as I have, I’ve had no choice as to whether to agree to it to begin with. Nowhere did I explicitly sign or otherwise give my agreement or consent to anything that even had a “We reserve the right to change the terms whenever we like” clause.
Furthermore, I’d like to add that states are at least somewhat deceptive in their treatment of land. Although the state never grants allodial titles to its citizens, its land policies nevertheless foster the delusion that people “truly own” the land they hold non-allodial title to.
Thanks, I think. 
Why are you impressed?
I don’t think morality is (entirely) ideological. Of course, it depends on what you take “ideological” to mean. But I think at least the core of what I’d call “morality” is instinctual and essentially universal among human beings.
To put it another way: from what I can tell, people have an instinctual basis for what they see as aggression. You could call this “natural law” or (perhaps more preferably) “natural order”. My thinking is that the state interferes with natural order, and that this interference can never be a good thing. However, that doesn’t mean natural order is “perfect” – only that there can be nothing really “better”.
From what I’ve read, you cannot escape US tax liability unless you renounce US citizenship. Even if you renounced your US citizenship, the US government could still hold you liable for (certain?) taxes. Note that the US is a rather special case here; nearly every other country only holds its citizens liable for taxes when they are within its borders.
The other problem with this is that, in the event that large numbers of people were to start leaving the country, the chances of the US government closing the borders a la North Korea would increase greatly. It’s relatively simple logic – since the state enriches itself at its subjects’ expense (so to speak), having fewer subjects leads to less enrichment. At some point, the costs of holding its subjects’ explicitly captive will be seen as greater than the costs of continuing to let them leave freely.
Basically it’s akin to having a landlord who you think is honest but is actually a conniving liar. As long as you stay, he claims that you can leave whenever you like; but when you actually decide to leave, he suddenly claims you cannot. This isn’t a perfect analogy with the government, given that dealing with large numbers can allow for “leakages”, but I hope you see how it still holds.
Thanks. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, as far as I’m concerned, feudalism is by-and-large what the free market looks like in a largely agrarian economy. However, I understand manorialism to be different from feudalism. The latter was basically what remained of the Late Roman Empire’s quasi-communistic planned economy, whereas the former was the much more free-market Germanic system. Of course, these two systems meshed in areas of the Roman Empire that were conquered by Germanic war-kings.
There are two major differences I see with our “advanced republics”. One is the deception that electing representatives with plena potestas (that’s Latin for “full power”) and constitutional monarchies amount to the originally libertarian notion of popular or self-rule. The second, and perhaps more pernicious, is legal positivism. In comparison to modern states, feudal societies seem positively anarcho-capitalist.
As Bourne pointed out, “The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice. International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The history of America as a country is quite different from that of America as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals, of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for all.”
Where?
OK, but why does this matter?
So you are relying on a moral justification of force, when you consider it “self-defense”. How would you go about dealing with those who have acted martially in a (what you consider) “unjust” fashion?
Me personally? I dunno, maybe.
OK, what do you suggest we do? Exile babies outside the city walls until they can explicitly agree to the terms of the state?
It’s just not every day I run into someone who has independently concluded that “truth” is accepted as a matter of faith.
So, you think that all (most?) people have an inate sense of morality that is somehow tharted by an organization made up of people? Confusing.
I would disagree with this, at least with a nation the size of the US, with a national myth such as the US has. Once we have stopped pretending to be the “shining city on the hill”, the paragon of Humanist virtue, we are finished.
People who object to anarchy usually just think there are no precedents or legal background, and everything is just up to everyone to decide. Maybe it was like that at the dawn of mankind, but most historical anarchies had pre-existing polycentric legal systems, that while not perfectly libertarian, provided expedient dispute resolution and protection of property rights.
So, my answer is that an anarchist society would quickly decide what counts as illegal, so we won’t have to make spur of the moment, individual judgements on when someone is breaking the law.
But if I were alone in the woods and someone started doing something unjust to me, I would try to reason with them. Just because I think I have a right to defend myself doesn’t mean violence can’t be barbaric and costly.
In here:
The boldfaced part is where I explained where it breaks down.
Because you said this:
I was simply correcting your question, changing the always into usually.
So, you are saying that groups of people with homogenous ideologies would clump together and form territories in which they can exclusively adjudicate, based upon those norms…
How is this different than a state?
Oh, OK.
Usually, as long as the majority (“normal people”) can successfully supress the minority (those with high time preferences or the “insane”).
Of course, which explains why I brought this up:
We live in a society, which means the majority are the “normal people”.
You seem to be describing the following:
A territorial monopoly (property) in which the controllers of said territory (the strongest faction) discriminate against and supress others (the weaker factions) via market pressure to conform to their ideology, or face retributive consequences (lawsuits, exile, death, etc.).
How is this different than the state?
“Maybe”? What does it depend on? What would help you to decide?
Your question is a red herring. I was simply pointing out the nature of the situation that I and others “born into” a state are in. Asking me what I suggest we do about it (or instead) has no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
Well, I think that depends on how one defines “truth”. Out of curiosity, how do you define it?
Can you please point out where I said that all men are angels? Is your strawman deliberate here?
I’d say we’re close to being finished.
No, but I will try to restate it. Keep in mind that I am not confident about this argument. So don’t expect solid arguments or good writing. This is just what I have been able to come up with.
An “exclusive” territorial property owner gets his power from being able to forcibly exclude other people from using his property; and an “inclusive” territorial property owner instead gets his power from being able to forcibly include other people in using his property.
First, you can force somebody to do something only if he doesn’t already want to do it at least in the praxeological sense of the term. If he already wants to do it in that sense of the term, he is necessarily already doing it, which means that it is simply too late to try to force him. So, if you forcibly exclude somebody from using your property, that means that he wanted to use it, but you forcibly prevented him; and, if you physically include somebody in using your property, that means that he didn’t want to use it, but you forcibly made him.
Which means that an exclusive territorial property owner gets his power from the facts that at least particular ways of using his property is attractive to other people, and he can choose whether to help them out or not, by letting them use it, but an inclusive territorial property owner instead gets his power from the facts that at least particular ways of using his property is unattractive to other people, and he can choose whether to screw them over or not, by forcing them to use it or not.
A state is both; and the kind of property that most people here want is just exclusive. A state doesn’t just threaten to throw you off their property, but also threatens to make you use their property in a way which you probably don’t want, such as being thrown in one of their prisons and so on. But the kind of property which people here envision only means that the property owner can threaten to throw people off their property. If the person values doing A on their property more than being thrown off, they stay; and, if the person values doing A on their property less than being thrown off, they leave.
So at least one of the problems is that the people making up the state are not only exclusive, but also inclusive property owners. But somebody with the power to be an exclusive property owner probably also has the power to be an inclusive property owner; so how can we expect somebody to just remain exclusive, wouldn’t somebody with the power to exclude just start including? Well, the whole argument of anarcho-capitalism is as I said that it is always the incentive for any of the “normal people” to just remain an exclusive territorial property owner, and not become also an inclusive property owner, and the “normal people” have to be the majority for there to even be the society, so it is usually the incentive to just stay being an exclusive property owner.
Those arguments include the calculation problem, the knowledge problem, and so on. I can’t explain those very well; so I will just say that being an inclusive property owner is like being a central planner.
Otherwise, I wonder whether there is anything to the argument that the difference is just whether they justly “homesteaded” or not. My first thought is that, though my argument doesn’t account for that, it is all that there is, because consider this situation. Imagine that you live on a farm, and then I decide that it is mine, and I have the superior power to exclude you from it. I am being an exclusive territorial property owner in that example, because I never even mentioned how people acquire property. So why couldn’t I just acquire it through merely deciding that it is mine? Well, I could do that; but my guess is that the property demarcations simply come about based on how people decide to use their power. Yes, somebody could just decide that your farm is theirs, and exclude you from it, while still being just an exclusive property owner; but that wouldn’t happen in a developed society, because they simply wouldn’t have the power to do that, because other people, who don’t want their property to become insecure, fight for the security of property as a rule.
Yes, maybe.
The circumstances.
Probably how well he was doing!
Fair enough. No one has explicitly made a contract with you to allow you to agree/disagree to their terms of habitation. If so, so what?
Hmm, I’d say a claim of absolute knowledge based upon faith in some method of qualification.
I don’t think you have.
No.
LOL