The State is a corporation that enjoys a monopoly on legal initiatory violence and is the final arbiter of disputes, including disputes with itself. This is the definition of the State. Without such properties, the corporation is not a State. Society needs no such corporation, and in fact is harmed by such a corporation, although it needs rules.
A society that recognizes property rights, but not the legitimacy of a governance monopoly (State) is properly called "anarcho-capitalist".
A corporation that provides the services currently supplied by the State, but that did not enjoy monopoly and final arbiter status would not be a State. "Essential services" would still be provided, and provided more efficiently and most important VOLUNTARILY.
Topic: The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument - page 2. (Read 10625 times)
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.
A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.
Sounds like government.
Property is impossible.
How does that sound like government?
I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.
I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.
Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?
FYI: without property, society is impossible.
[/quote]
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.
A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.
Sounds like government.
Property is impossible.
[/quote]
How does that sound like government?
I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.
I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.
Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?
FYI: without property, society is impossible.
States and corporations are basically the same thing.
Not even 'basically'. There's no need to qualify it:
cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/Noun
1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
2. A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.
I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
You need to quantify 'unused'
If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it.
A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. 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'.
A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.
Sounds like government.
Property is impossible.
"Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included."
when I steal it's theft. When government steals, it's taxation
when I kidnap, it's a felony. When the State kidnaps, it's an arrest
when I force people to work for me, it's slavery. When the State does it, it's the Draft, selective service, conscription, whatever.
The state doesn't obey the same rules at all. it breaks the rules and gives it's violations different names.
when I steal it's theft. When government steals, it's taxation
when I kidnap, it's a felony. When the State kidnaps, it's an arrest
when I force people to work for me, it's slavery. When the State does it, it's the Draft, selective service, conscription, whatever.
The state doesn't obey the same rules at all. it breaks the rules and gives it's violations different names.
hahhahaha
Taxation isn't stealing, it's written into the law and thus part of the contract.
Arrests are kidnapping, their parameters are written into the law and thus part of the contract.
Selective service is written into the law and military members are paid, therefore it is part of the contract and not slavery.
YOU defined those things on your own terms. The terms of the contract define them as such.
It's really cute how you completely ignore the fact that the relationship between the State and it's citizen is totally unilateral. Troll elsewhere.
What's cuter is that you ignore the fact that people have a hand in government (that's what a democracy is), so they if they care enough they can tailor the contract any way they see fit. If they're unable to do that, they can GTFO at any time.
What's the cutest is that you sit here and bemoan the evil government all day, while enjoying all its benefits.
'Democracy', lol. Let me know when you finish your high school civics class.
Keeping with the consistency of statism, you're right, I enjoy the 'benefits' of Government, like out of control cops, horribly maintained roads/infrastructure, and I'm given no other choices, because these services are forced on me, at gunpoint. Since you hate corporations so much, why are you so willing to type on a computer manufactured with parts made by evil corporations, using software developed by mega-corporations like Microsoft, and sending your posts out through internet owned and operated by a private corporation? Because you do these things, that means you can't hate corporations, because you use their products!
Nice argument, bro. How's High School treating you?
He's in favor of government, but against the corporations?
Stalinist much?
That way lies State Capitalism, which is even worse than the Corporatist system we currently have.
States and corporations are basically the same thing.
I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
I would also add that emergent standards arise concerning what exactly constitutes "abandoned" property. There is a body of common law on this already, which varies somewhat depending on where you are. Bottom line is that the PRIMARY enforcers of property rights are the property owners themselves. Custom, common law, social pressure, third party dispute arbitrators all contribute to the enforcement and interpretation of property rights.
I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
You need to quantify 'unused'
If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it.
A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. 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'.
A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.
I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
I have better things to do with my lifespan.
Nice cop out.
I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum. Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside. But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value. Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.
+1.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
I have better things to do with my lifespan.
Nice cop out.
I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum. Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside. But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value. Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.
Nice cop out.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
I have better things to do with my lifespan.
Nice cop out.
I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum. Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside. But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value. Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
I have better things to do with my lifespan.
Nice cop out.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
I have better things to do with my lifespan.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
Put them in context.
Which, at the time, were the state. It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.
At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.
What you think and what is logically consistent are two different things in this case.
You keep saying that, but I don't think that you know what that means.
If we were to bother with the logical consistency argument, you might die from the cognative dissonance.
Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.
Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do? Really? I could have done better than that on your behalf.
I don't think that you want a founding father quote war. You would be buried in counter quotes and this thread would just devolve into irrelevency. They weren't gods, and they weren't ideologically perfect, either. I didn't claim any such thing. I said that they were closer to libs than anything else that can be found in modern politics, and I think that even you know this to be true. I could crush what you posted with the single text of the 'give me liberty or give me death' speech.
Which, at the time, were the state. It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.
At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.
What you think and what is logically consistent are two different things in this case.
Which, at the time, were the state. It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.
At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.
Jump to: