The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument

Babylon

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 08:58:51 PM

Quote from: Babylon on June 18, 2011, 07:54:41 PM

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed? Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

That is my point. If force is acceptable (in anything else than self-defense) then we would basically end up in some situation similiar to what we have today.

I support an anarchist system and it seems to me property rights would most likely be limited to what you can actually use personally. I don't see people accepting somebody owning land or buildings they practically never use. At least that is my sentinment and that's what I see from movements such as squatters. Though I agree it's hard to say what people would agree on.

Of course I also think this point will probably become moot after the 2012 event with the raising of consciousness. Violence and lieing will simply not be possible.

I suspect I might be with you then.

I'm an Anarcho-Socialist so i don't believe in extensive property rights.

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Babylon on June 18, 2011, 07:54:41 PM

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed? Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

That is my point. If force is acceptable (in anything else than self-defense) then we would basically end up in some situation similiar to what we have today.

I support an anarchist system and it seems to me property rights would most likely be limited to what you can actually use personally. I don't see people accepting somebody owning land or buildings they practically never use. At least that is my sentiment and that's what I see from movements such as squatters. Though I agree it's hard to say what people would agree on.

But I also think this point will probably become moot after the 2012 event with the raising of consciousness. Violence and lieing will simply not be possible (or very, very limited).

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 03:58:19 PM

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't envision a peaceful society with "extensive" property rights.

What I mean with "extensive" property rights is that a person can own any amount of land beyond what they make immediate use of themself. It seems to me to have property rights beyond what you actually can use yourself you need force in some form.

People are going to want to have some land for themselves. Just look at how many squatters and land disputes there are today even with a State. The desire for people to have some land for themselves is not going to away just because the State disappears.

Also, this notion of property is relatively western & modern. Remember that American natives did not have this concept of land property.
So my preference would be to have no extensive property rights and thereby a more peaceful society.

There is no way of knowing how "extensive" the property rights would become in any given AnCap society, but because the founding principle of the society in the Non-Agression Axiom, the violence would likely be relatively less. It's quite possible that Use would be a major factor if not the primary factor in determining ownership. I would be ok with that.

Babylon

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 04:46:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.

You could present a forged document, or you could bribe the arbritation court. So many possibilities for the really creative evil person.

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'

Then you kill any investigator who comes too close to the truth.

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed? Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 05:26:52 PM

Since the only way to "defend" unused property though is through violence or threat of violence (because many people want property) then property rights (beyond what you actually use for yourself) are not going to work.

Since the only way to "defend" yourself against rape is by violence or threat of violence, Any form of sexual discretion is not going to work.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 05:20:00 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 05:15:09 PM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 05:04:08 PM

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing for their paycheck.

And where would this indoctrination come from? You going to be raising your own army from kids?

I guess it's possible, horrendously expensive, especially on your own dime, but possible. But what happens when you start storming houses, and losing troops? What happens when the other members of your society notice that you've gone and raised an army, and are now using it for conquest?

Well, look at history of the past 3000 years. This is exactly how it worked. You can "pay" for your conquest through the plunder you acquire.

You can indoctrinate people with religion, for example, or certain ideologies, like Communism or Fascism.

If you really have a strong army other people will have to submit to you. Also, if you are not entirely cruel and let people live under your "rule", then they might willingly submit to you or even help you. Also, you can always spread lies and rumors and make other groups seem to be worse enemies.

1: You won't be making any money while you're raising the kids. that's a 16-18 year investment in what, 3 to 400 kids? Whoo. You must be mighty rich.

2: Indoctrination doesn't happen overnight, Chief, you gotta get 'em young, before they start thinking for themselves.

3: Just exactly how strong an army can you afford? Remember, you've got to raise them on your own dime, since you can't have any plunder until you have an army.

4: How are you, by definition a monopoly, going to provide better services than the Market already does for these people? Do you honestly believe that propaganda is going to work in AnCapistan?

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

What I'm trying to say is that IMHO if violence or threat of violence in any form is acceptable then an anarcho-capitalist society is not going to work, or rather it will work but it will eventually end up in the situation we have today. That namely through competition the most successful group at using and consolidating force will eventually take over everything (and call itself "government" to justify itself).

Since the only way to "defend" unused property though is through violence or threat of violence (because many people want property) then property rights (beyond what you actually use for yourself) are not going to work.

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 05:15:09 PM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 05:04:08 PM

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing for their paycheck.

And where would this indoctrination come from? You going to be raising your own army from kids?

I guess it's possible, horrendously expensive, especially on your own dime, but possible. But what happens when you start storming houses, and losing troops? What happens when the other members of your society notice that you've gone and raised an army, and are now using it for conquest?

Well, look at history of the past 3000 years. This is exactly how it worked. You can "pay" for your conquest through the plunder you acquire.

You can indoctrinate people with religion, for example, or certain ideologies, like Communism or Fascism.

If you really have a strong army other people will have to submit to you. Also, if you are not entirely cruel and let people live under your "rule", then they might willingly submit to you or even help you. Also, you can always spread lies and rumors and make other groups seem to be worse enemies.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 05:04:08 PM

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing for their paycheck.

And where would this indoctrination come from? You going to be raising your own army from kids?

I guess it's possible, horrendously expensive, especially on your own dime, but possible. But what happens when you start storming houses, and losing troops? What happens when the other members of your society notice that you've gone and raised an army, and are now using it for conquest?

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:59:12 PM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 04:46:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

My point is, that yes, violence is one way to do things, but it is not the most efficient way. Once you've forcefully evicted someone, you then have to defend yourself against their counter-attack, not to mention the possibility of losses in the initial assault. Keep in mind that your armed guards aren't soldiers, they're just people looking for a paycheck, and there are better ways of earning your paycheck than taking over people's houses.

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing it for their paycheck. But of course you only start taking over the land of the weakest people first. Also you offer "peace" to anyone who submits to you voluntarily. Anyone who dares to counter-attack you threaten with with extreme retaliation (or perhaps cut a deal with them). Once you have "conquered" a large enough territory you declare yourself "king".

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 04:46:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

My point is, that yes, violence is one way to do things, but it is not the most efficient way. Once you've forcefully evicted someone, you then have to defend yourself against their counter-attack, not to mention the possibility of losses in the initial assault. Keep in mind that your armed guards aren't soldiers, they're just people looking for a paycheck, and there are better ways of earning your paycheck than taking over people's houses.

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.

You could present a forged document, or you could bribe the arbritation court. So many possibilities for the really creative evil person.

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:44:22 PM

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'

Then you kill any investigator who comes too close to the truth.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 04:36:12 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:08:55 PM

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

They could lie to the arbitration court and say that the previous owner sold it to them, or they could simply kill the previous owner and bury his body without trace.

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:08:55 PM

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

They could lie to the arbitration court and say that the previous owner sold it to them, or they could simply kill the previous owner and bury his body without trace.

The point is that any organization with sufficient resources to lie, cheat, steal or kill sucessfully could assert themselves if people generally recognized that some people have right to a lot more land than other people. It took many centuries, but IMHO that's exactly how we got into this situation today.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 04:20:57 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:08:55 PM

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

This still sounds like "Might makes Right" to me. Not much different that what we already have today.
What if a person with armed guards takes over a previously unclaimed piece of property?
What if they take over the property of a somebody who has gone away for a few days?

No, it's really quite different from what we have today. Today, those 'armed guards' are paid for by forcing people to give them money. That's not at all what this is.

Previously unclaimed property is previously unclaimed. Now it's not unclaimed, he claimed it. Same as if someone without the guards just up and moved in.

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 04:08:55 PM

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

So the biggest, most organized group with the most guns gets the most land. You could name that group "Government".

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 03:37:19 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 01:44:53 PM

A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Babylon on June 18, 2011, 03:18:43 PM

Standards would be developed, and enforced via arbitration. Or presumably there would be some sort of enforcement, since without an enforcement mechanism arbitration is kind of useless.

Most 'enforcement' in AnCap society is economic. With force not a legitimate option, a person who refuses arbitration or refuses to abide by the result of the arbitration (unlikely, since he agreed to that result) would find himself outside of society. No one would trade with him, no one would work with him, and no one would offer him a job.

Worse, no arbitration firm or mediation group would contract with him, so he would be 'out in the cold' when it comes to dispute resolution... the original meaning of outlaw. Since learning this information would be part of growing up in the society, everyone would know it, so very few would refuse arbitration or fail to keep their end of the bargain.

Obviously, this is an extreme case. First time 'offenders' might still be able to find people to work with them, albeit at higher rates, with stricter contract requirements, more supervision, or payment required up front. Basically, Life, for the known - for lack of a better word - 'cheater', sucks.

Mageant

legendary

Activity: 1145

Merit: 1001

Quote from: billyjoeallen on June 18, 2011, 03:46:43 PM

What you want and what you can reasonably expect are two entirely different things. We can't eliminate violence in society, unfortunately. We can only work to minimize it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't envision a peaceful society with "extensive" property rights.

What I mean with "extensive" property rights is that a person can own any amount of land beyond what they make immediate use of themself. It seems to me to have property rights beyond what you actually can use yourself you need force in some form.

People are going to want to have some land for themselves. Just look at how many squatters and land disputes there are today even with a State. The desire for people to have some land for themselves is not going to away just because the State disappears.

Also, this notion of property is relatively western & modern. Remember that American natives did not have this concept of land property.
So my preference would be to have no extensive property rights and thereby a more peaceful society.

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: Mageant on June 18, 2011, 03:37:19 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2011, 01:44:53 PM

A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

What you want and what you can reasonably expect are two entirely different things. We can't eliminate violence in society, unfortunately. We can only work to minimize it.

Topic: The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument (Read 10543 times)