Tom P

That's a tricky one isn't it. I suppose that you could have a *few* pacifists in a free society where the majority were willing to defend themselves and others, but certainly not a widespread society of pacifists.

http://i.imgur.com/x48E5rb.jpg I think that covers it, of course, any particular point could be endlessly expounded upon...

I think you are over complicating this. Peter has apples, he'd like to have some pears. Mark has lots of pears, he'd like to have some apples. Peter and Mark can easily trade because they have a double coincidence of wants. But what would happen if Peter wanted bananas? John has bananas. He'd be willing to trade for pears but doesn't want any apples. In order for Peter to get some bananas he'd have to trade with Mark first to get pears and THEN trade his pears for the bananas. This is why direct barter is inefficeint and people sought a common medium that everyone wanted to have, such as gold.

I agree.

Jeff Tucker is no leftie, very pro free market.

1) I disagree, I think nearly everyone would want their real property rights to be insured. "Possession” alone would not be adequate if the property were to be used as collateral in a lending situation, for example. Some defensible guarantee of whom the rightful owner is would be essential. 2) Because you cannot have a stable, modern civilization without defensible real property rights. 3) Some might make the claim that no lands have been justly acquired because they were originally appropriated by (state) conquest. (Marxists?, left anarchists?) I think the answer is that the person with the most defensible title would be the rightful owner. If I had a deed for a plot of land that could be traced back for say 100 years, I would hope in a free society that that legal claim would take precedent over a squatter, even if I were not “actively homesteading” the land. The reason I bring this up is because it seems like some anarchists are way too cavalier about this stuff. A free society doesn't mean free land for all. If modern civilization is to be maintained without some regression to a Robinson Crusoe like state of affairs, then some very definite private property rights would have to be maintained to maximize utility and avoid a “tragedy of the commons” scenario.

As Voluntaryists, we well understand how private enterprise would be practically and morally superior to the state at providing all products and services, including rights protection services. However, I'm not sure I've ever heard or read of an explanation of how real property claims (real estate) would be established and/or maintained in a transition from a statist society to a free society. The establishment of real property rights are foundational to civilization for reasons we “right” libertarians well understand. It seems likely that the historical chain of ownership of privately owned real estate deeds, for pragmatic reasons, would have to continue as the interruption of such rights would cause extreme societal chaos. But is there any guarantee that a free society would agree to uphold such prior arrangements? How would such an agreement even be made? Popular vote? Might this be a defense for the Minarchist camp? For “public” lands formerly held by the state, it seems likely that this land would revert to the “commons,” available to anyone who could properly homestead it in the Lockean sense. It's also quite possible that these “public” lands would be auctioned off in the liquidation of the state's holdings. The issue of “justly acquired property” and the exclusive ownership thereof is obviously a pretty contentious item among all political ideologies, I was just wondering if we have a practical solution here? Has Rothbard or Hoppe or someone else addressed this?

Just some thoughts from the devil's advocate... Maybe perfect rationality in every sphere of human thought is an unrealistic goal for most people? To eradicate from the mind such obvious nonsense as high religiosity and political authority (one and the same?) can leave one in a pretty lonely place in light of ones own mortality. Perhaps the popular trend towards secularism in the West has not been a trend towards rationality but simply a transference of one irrational belief system to another. Holding steadfast to objective truth is a matter of will, I'm not totally sure that I would be strong-willed enough to reject a little bit of mysticism in light of some catastrophic life event of which, so far, fortunately, I've been spared. Perhaps 95% rational is as good as we can expect out of most people for the time being and a little bit of relatively benign “spirituality” is OK. But, then again, maybe this is the slippery slope to the abyss of crazytown superstitions...I don't know, not an easy question!

I appreciate the input everyone! Justus, just wondering what sort of business you have? I've had two so far. One was capital intensive but not necessarily geographically dependent. The other (my current profession) is not capital intensive at all, but is very geographically dependent. I'd like to be free like you!

Thanks Daniel, I appreciate the input. 1. You're quite about the per capita costs depending on the total number of "subscribers." I was trying to avoid getting too technical. 2. You're right again. That seems hypocritical, I'm going to rework that idea. 3. I'm as Ancap as they come too. I see this as a transition from "government" to something more like a home-owners association. Home-owners association flags! 4. I'm not crazy about the idea either, but shaming is better than outright violence. The names of the residents are already known from the former tax roles. I agree land owners names should be kept private in a free society. 5. Yes. Perhaps I'll change that part too.. The biggest problem with our (Ancap) vision is, how the hell are we going to make this transiton? What practical steps could be taken by modifing our current institutions? I know Stef is doing great things promoting peaceful parenting, which is awesome, but I don't want to wait 100 years! I 100% agree with Stef that making the moral case vs the economic case is the most expedient way to go. Thanks again!

Just a simple little story trying to outline some basic libertairan ideas and how they might be practically(?) accomplised in a small town setting. Not perfect Ancap but....comments & criticisms wanted! The Flags of Braybury Good evening citizens of Braybury and members of town council. It has been my great honor serving you as mayor over these past few months. I've had some difficulty in reconciling past events and adjusting to my new role but, tonight, I'd like to propose some changes for how we normally do business in our little town and I'd wholeheartedly appreciate your input. As you all know, the tax revolt up in Glenville has created quite a ruckus and has given all of us at town hall some pause for reflection on how we might be able to better serve our proud little town of Braybury in a more peaceful, equitable, and just manner. As of today, I will no longer be accepting payment for representing Braybury as your mayor and all that I have been paid so far will be tendered back to the town treasury. My wife and I have done very well in our little community over the past twenty years and I'd feel more comfortable being a true public servant on a strictly voluntary basis. My formal duties only take a few hours a week and it gives me great joy to promote our little town to visitors and potential business investors. I'd simply like to take this year-long term to give back. Earlier this week, I met with our town treasurer, Mr. Blackburn, to go over some documents that I'd like to share with all of you now. As you know, the town functions of Braybury, like every town in America, are funded by property taxes based on the current market value of your homes. With the downturn in our national and local real estate markets, it has been a furious struggle to assess fair values on all of your properties...as the number of complaints from you and our assessor, Mrs. Farnon, can attest. Furthermore, a land-based tax is an infringement on your basic human right of being secure in your private property. The notion of providing a strong incentive to keep a home in a state of disrepair has never made much sense to me either. After all, a beautiful home is a delight for all that see it. I propose we move to a more efficient and moral method for funding our town. The documents you are looking at now consist of estimated costs for services and a checklist for what you might like us to do. There are some basic town infrastructure items that will need to be met, but, beyond those items, I feel it would be more fair to move to a subscription basis. The budget for public roads, water, sewer, parks and the transfer station amount to roughly $200 per year per homeowner based upon this years projection. Scrolling down the page you will see the estimated costs per homeowner for additional services such as peace officers, fire department personnel, the town school and more. As you by now well know, I have always considered “taxes” a euphemism for theft. I do not wish to steal from you, friends and neighbors, and we will no longer be collecting taxes as such. In addition to the chaos we've seen up in Glenville, we simply cannot afford the additional costs of enforcing tax liens, tax abatement lawsuits, the personal risk to our peace officers, and general ill will among the public for perceived unnecessary services and unjust treatment. To my mind, if you are responsible enough to own and maintain a property in Braybury, you are responsible enough to contribute at your own free will for the maintenance and flourishing of our community. Those homeowners who contribute to the basic infrastructure needs of Braybury will be given a flag to display on your home, signaling your support for our community. Those who contribute for additional services will be given endorsements on his or her flag corresponding to those services subscribed to. A full list of subscribers and non-subscribers will be printed in the Braybury Gazette, displayed at the town square, and kept on file here at town hall. The non-subscribers will not be aggressed against but, of course, will be plainly visible for all to see. Fellow citizens of Braybury, with this new freedom also comes new responsibilities, but you are not children and I do not desire to treat you as such. Since our services are strictly based upon the funding of voluntary subscribers, we will not be able to offer services to those who have not made the appropriate contributions. I also wish not to act unilaterally on such matters and before we proceed with these ideas, we would need unanimous consent. What say you? And with the raised hands of consent, the flags of Braybury flew as the first Voluntary community of many more to follow.

That's pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I'm a Rothbardian/AnCap/Voluntaryist. I'm a product of public school brainwashing like every other American...it takes a long time to shake those early childhood influences!

But maybe your son would prefer not to eat meat at all if he knew where it came from? Has he been given the choice? Diet is very much a learned behavior. I suspect that most meat-eaters would change their ways if they actually had to hunt down and butcher their own animals. With that said, I really have no ethical problem with hunting or fishing for survival or even "survival training." It's a useful skill. I do not agree with the ethical vegans when they claim that animals somehow have rights on par with humans. I'm pro human.

Thanks Ayn. I'm a fan of your work

My name is Tom, and I am a recovering Statist. I've been listening to Stef for a few years now (I donate!) but have never really checked out this forum. Looks cool!