Are you saying that well functioning markets can only happen under aggresive monopolies?
No. I am just saying I don’t think well developed markets are likely to arise in statelessness.
Why?
Why?
Becasue there are many different scenarios that could happen. Why would markets develop and people cooperate peacefully in a marketpalce as opposed to any other of the scenarios?
@Brutus: I’m not aware of any society that has ever defined children to be the property of their parents nor am I aware of any an-cap theories that would suggest that children are property.
It is rarely the case that a parent’s mistreatment of a child is so severe as to warrant immediate intervention. If a stranger were to intervene against a parent, I think the right way to adjudicate the issue would be for the stranger to appeal to the child’s other relatives for support. Let’s say you are beating your child and I step onto your property and physically restrain you in order to allow the child to escape. Later, you sue me for trespassing, assault, battery and unlawful restraint. I believe that, legally, I should be in a very precarious position since it is rarely the case that strangers have the interests of a child more at heart than do the biological parents of that child. In fact, all genetic strangers should be treated as potential child-exploiters in the eyes of the law (cui bono). However, if I can recruit the other genetic relatives of the child to support my actions, then that may help in justifying how I acted, even if I did, in fact, violate otherwise well-established property rights. This is based on my theory that the law should assign a hierarchy of rights in the care of a child based on relatedness to the child. Basically, the parents have the highest right to care for a child, then the grandparents, and so on.
Clayton -
And what makes those scenarios more likely? I could imagine a thousand paths a ball could follow being dropped from 5 feet, but that doesn’t mean the outcome of the ball hitting the ground after a second or two is unlikely.
Why would markets develop in a marketplace? Did you want to rephrase that?
A market is where exchanges take place. The nature of exchange is voluntary. Perhaps it cannot be predicted with certainty that anarchy would likely imply a marketplace (though I and many others here would argue the opposite), but it can be predicted with certainty that no alternative social system can imply a marketplace, for an alternative to anarchy implies a state, a state implies aggression, and aggression is the negation of a marketplace.
Don’t shift the burden of proof Eric. You made a claim, I am asking you to substantiate it. How do you know what would and would not happen?
Why would markets develop in a marketplace? Did you want to rephrase that?
Why would I want to rephrae something that I didn’t say.
A market is where exchanges take place. The nature of exchange is voluntary. Perhaps it cannot be predicted with certainty that anarchy would likely imply a marketplace (though I and many others here would argue the opposite), but it can be predicted with certainty that no alternative social system can imply a marketplace, for an alternative to anarchy implies a state, a state implies aggression, and aggression is the negation of a marketplace.
I dont understand what you are saying here. We currently have a state and markets
How exactly is this an excuse/justification for statism? If anything you want swift action for future uncertainty, not sluggish/neglected action a state brings. If anything your concernss should drive you more to doubt monopolistic governance than anything else.
Don’t shift the burden of proof Eric. You made a claim, I am asking you to substantiate it. How do you know what would and would not happen?
I don’t know what would and would not happen. But I don’t see any reason why statelesness would look anything likie your plan for society as opposed to anything else. If I had to put my money on it though, I would predict mass panic. However I do not think it is wise to risk civil society on some pipedream.
Based on the little emperical evidence there is, a stateless society doesn’t look very appealing.
You said almost exactly what I claimed.
See?
Then contest one of my premises. Your form is really sloppy.
You’re shifitng the burden of proof here once again. You’ve basically said nothing so far, but that you aren’t convinced by an-cap arguments. Why are you not convinced by an-cap arguments?
And I suppose the recent account of states provides an appealing case for statism? Also, do you reject economic theory?
Brutus:
In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
I say to the man, “Sir, I will pay you 15 silver ounces for the custody of your kid, 5 silver ounces less for each additional time you hit the kid, or 0 silver ounces if the kid dies.”
Secretly, I will pay up to 30 silver ounces if a competing bidder (bring it on, relatives or anyone else) or the man counteroffers, else I will walk away.
Regardless if the man accepts, rejects, or counteroffers, my gun stays holstered, so long as the man’s gun, if any, stays holstered (or the man does not charge me if he is unarmed).
Should I gain custody of the kid, I will put the kid to work. No state worship school for him. If the kid decides that completing his apprenticeship from me is not worth it (keep in mind that at 5 years old, I will have to teach him/her prerequisites, like reading, so apprenticing him can take many years), then I threaten to cease custody and let the kid (or somebody else) be responsible for taking care of himself. I will see if the kid changes his mind. Financial independence or bust.
I am remorseless.
(I wait for somebody on the Left to call me a adoptive parent child enslaver, who sits a child at my office sweatshop. I wait for somebody on the non-Left to berate me for not letting a fourth party intrude into a mutual exchange of the custody of the child between the man and me and pocket any of the silver ounces in a paperwork-generator case that could have all gone to the man.)
“In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?”
“It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say “no” to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say “no.”[8]” ~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
Attempt to stop it, find out the accusations / charges / reason for beating the boy… i.e was he the criminal aggressor or not.
Pray tell, what exactly is my plan for society?
Why would you bet on that?
What is a civil society?
What is a stateless society?
Conza, your quote styling is miserable as usual. I can’t tell if you are replying to me or not, so before you spit the dummy and flip out because you’re paranoid people are ignoring you, maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before replying.
Also, Hoppe’s theory of natural property and $5 will get you a Starbuck’s coffee.
Conza, your quote styling is miserable as usual. I can’t tell if you are replying to me or not, so before you spit the dummy and flip out because you’re paranoid people are ignoring you, maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before replying.
Conza88 was replying to the OP and quoting Hoppe to support Conza88’s answer.
(P.S. Instead of using the broken text editor, I find it faster to click the Source button and enter the HTML tags myself whenever I want to quote somebody.)
@ Liberty Student
Ease up turbo.
“According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else.”~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
So according to Hoppe’s quote of the natural theory of property, self-ownership starts at birth and no earlier?
As far as I am aware of in AE literature, Conservative Christians only have an appeal to faith if they argue that self-ownership starts at conception, so is this correct?
The establishment of self-ownership affects at least one of the dilemmas I posted.
You said almost exactly what I claimed.
I was asking why markets would develop to begin with. I was not assuming that there was a preexisting marketplace.
Then contest one of my premises. Your form is really sloppy.
What you said didn’t make sense.
“but it can be predicted with certainty that no alternative social system can imply a marketplace, for an alternative to anarchy implies a state, a state implies aggression, and aggression is the negation of a marketplace.”
But there is currently a state, and there are curently markets. So idk what you are talkiing about.
You’re shifitng the burden of proof here once again. You’ve basically said nothing so far, but that you aren’t convinced by an-cap arguments. Why are you not convinced by an-cap arguments?
I don’t buy the idea that statelessness would look anything like anarcho-capitalism. The idea that PDAs would just arise and protect peoples property, as opposed to something like mass panic or widespread gang warfare.
Also anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with a lot of my normative beliefs.
And I suppose the recent account of states provides an appealing case for statism? Also, do you reject economic theory?
Well what states are you talking about? It is not like statists just support “state.” For example I do not support north Korea even though I am a “statist.” I do not reject economic theory.
That’s not what you indicated with the language you used.
… That’s not an argument. If you accept that a marketplace is where voluntary interations take place, and that aggression is the negation of a marketplace, then you have to logically accept that a marketplace cannot exist under a state.
Repeating that does not make it an argument. Why wouldn’t adequate defense be provided under anarchy when economic theory indicates the opposite. Where and what is your objection?
What states should I consider and why do they represent statism?
I was asking why markets would develop to begin with. I was not assuming that there was a preexisting marketplace.
I’m curious if you know what defines a market? Because in a world with no marketplace there is no exchange taking place, you are limited to growing your own food, getting your own water, making any goods you would want, and life would be a pretty miserable experience lacking almost any of the luxuries we enjoy today that require exchange and longer production methods. All a marketplace requires is two people who would benefit from trading their goods or services, and it makes no difference if you multiply that by the six billion people on the planet. This requires no government or state or overseer, people do this naturally because every mutually beneficial exchange results in a better situation for both parties or they would not take it up. Do you really think in a stateless world we would have no marketplace? The government collapses tomorrow and you need to buy some gasoline, you won’t be able to find someone willing to make an exchange with you? Saying pre-existing marketplace is like saying pre-existing language, it’s just a given that one will develop.
But there is currently a state, and there are curently markets. So idk what you are talkiing about.
What we have now is a burdened, regulated, subsidized, fogged-up marketplace where there is so much government interference that entrepreneurs and consumers cannot accurately communicate and function together.
I don’t buy the idea that statelessness would look anything like anarcho-capitalism. The idea that PDAs would just arise and protect peoples property, as opposed to something like mass panic or widespread gang warfare.
Why wouldn’t private defense companies be formed in a stateless world? If there was a demand for it, entrepreneurs would have an incentive to supply private protection to consumers at varying prices and degrees of coverage. How would your life be different tomorrow if the government ceased to exist? Would you panic? Would you quit your job and form a gang?