I never said they did. I said, “implies an ownership claim.” If I confiscate someone’s productivity, that confiscation regresses back to the property associated with the productivity being confiscated. Confiscation of productivity is a de facto claim on property.
I do not think Denmark could reach the standard of living you purport in the event that the nation were isolated.
Realistically speaking, the remaining states would do to revolutionary zones the same thing that they have done for other countries falling to anarchy (mostly in Africa) which is to say nothing at all.
Revolutions tend to go in waves. In the 19th century revolutionary uprisings (1830 and 1848) the simple news that one revolution was ongoing was enough to trigger others everywhere else. The reason was that the established system was only stable if the different powers supported each other against revolution.
Well, so if the Anarchist society chose to trade with a slave-labor nation, worse case is the planner might make the slaves work harder to fill order.
On the other hand, if the anarchist society were really productive enough to consume more goods, it would bid up prices round the world. Everyone else would benefit from trading with the anarchist commune. Though who exactly benefits depends upon the level of wealth confiscation…
You are just playing word games now. You cannot confiscate someone’s productivity if they agreed to it. And the government claims we agreed to it.
Perhaps their current government becomes a PDA and sells territory to the highest bidder. I don’t think it would be very hard.
I believe we can reconcile our views. Perhaps we’d all agree that should anarchism take hold of a community the size of a small city, say Haifa, Israel or even smaller, and should the “wall” and all be implemented, inhabitants would join the State as financiers to profit form the untold billions of people toiling for them.
While should anarchism take holed of, say, the entire US, it would than be unimaginable that 300 millions could live of the slave work of 6 billions better than they’d live from global free trade. Is it, thus, just a question of the size of the community or the speed of spreading (or the quick action of nearby States?)?
After all, we know that anarchy need not spread in every case, for the roughly 100’000 men anarchistic community of politicians nowadays find it in their interest to keep anarchy from spreading further (we could add half a million of organized crime members). Hence we know that a small community may not want anarchy to spread. And we know that cartels become possible only when entry is restricted, hence there’s a small number of “players”. Would you agree that size is everything?
There will not be a wall built, so I don’t see the point. If a community the size of Haifa, Israel was able to secede, then I believe that would be sufficient for anarchy to spread to the rest of the world within a decade.
Well, here’s the bad news than: a community the size of ten Haifas (at the very least) has already seceded into anarchy! There has always been such a community, the community of politicians, business leaders, rich persons, high-placed mobster and the like, who live in total anarchy in regard to one another,l and are, consequently, rich as hell. I even submit that by joining Freemasonry one should be able to live in anarchy after passing the third degree, a rather simple feat for a median intelligence. You see, its so easy to live under anarchy and such a community is not only extended, but spread over the entire globe. Yet us others live in tyranny and oppression. No world-wide anarchist movement has evolved. So, it’s either a question of size, or else there’s something wrong with the theory. I firmly believe the former case aplies.
You are just playing word games. They are not in anarchy. Even government officials get in trouble by the government. If they were really in anarchy, they would not get in trouble by the government.
Interesting position. Well, of course I don’t mean that every government employee lives in anarchy. Of course teachers, academics, soldiers and the like are subjects of the State like you and But heavyweights, like Senators, Congressman, top business leaders, Organized crime Pardinos never get in trouble with the government. At most, they get into trouble with one another, just as people living under anarchy would. And, just as people living in anarchy, they either negotiate a solution, impose monetary payments on one-another, are banned from “the Community” or are simply asked to “gallantly commit suicide”. My friend, mine is no word-play: anarchy is here, it has always been, firmly within our individual grasp. Committing yourself to a productive career into the private sector just might earn you anarchy. But as for anarchy spreding inherently, that, I’m afraid, won’t happen until some million more people flee the state.
Yes they do. A governor of New York was recently brought up on charges of engaging in prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer#Post-resignation_developments). An Alaska Senators home was raided by the FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001427.html). A mayor in a town had his home raided, and dog shot, by a drug raid, and he did not have any drugs (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/8/124753/7426).
Again, you are just playing word games. Anarchy is when people choose to disobey the government, not work for the government.
I don’t get what this is supposed to mean. I don’t think they were very aware that they lived in anarchy or compared political systems. It just worked. They didn’t realize that their system was weakened when exceptions were made for religion. If people become too lax, they could always revert to statism. I do think that the myth will become near totally extinct, though even then we must be aware of the history of state brutality.
Almost nobody wants the society you hope for, where parents can rape and murder their children… Anyhow, your point is irrelevant. Iceland is a case of polycentric law maintaining order. Polycentric law today occurs more out of local tradition in areas with weak government. The difference, why I said “basically”, is that our future society would be aware of the risks of statism.
Spare me the baseless accusations. I told you I didn’t disagree with you on this so stop fixating on the government. I was talking about the relationship between productivity and property within the context of confiscation. If you can’t or don’t want to see that, then let’s part ways here.
How do we know these aren’t just interpersonal disputes, as within a band of thieves?
Right on target!
Almost nobody wants to get rid of government either. And your point is?