Who's Money Is It?

[Guest darkskyabove]

Just a thought:

Being as how, essentially, all property and wealth on Earth is the result, direct or indirect, past or present,of force (with a tiny few exceptions), and not the result of voluntary transaction, should anarcho-capitalists, or any group claiming to promote freedom, advocate the "wiping of the slate"?

Many people use the straw man version of the "free-market" to berate the perpetrators of the worlds ills, even though a truly free market has never existed in modern times; some understand that the depraved abuses only happen due to State-sponsored force.

To be wholly consistent in the claim that a free market is of benefit and fair to all, wouldn't that require all property to be redivided equally, allowing every human the same starting conditions, with equal chance to succeed or fail?

Granted, not all land has the same intrinsic value. But some land surely beats no land.

[MrCapitalism]

I don't advocate wiping the slate.

It's too hard, and more importantly I have no idea what a clean slate looks like. Prices and exchange are the best system known for allocating resources, I say just let them do their work.

[Arius]

 

By what means would this redistribution be accomplished?  Fair warning: Neither force nor coercion should be involved in your solution.

I can see exactly one non-state solution (but I am quite uncreative).  Every person could mutually agree to pool and evenly divide ownership of all property.  But, oh boy, I doubt most people would agree to that.

That's not to say no one would participate.  I'm sure there are a number of people who would willingly unify their resources into some kind of "fair pool".  What really matters is that no one forces involuntary participation or forcibly prevents voluntary participation.

 

[STer]

DarkSkyAbove,

When Stefan did a talk with Niel Kiernan of V-Radio, which is affiliated with Zeitgeist/The Venus Project, I wrote up a response to their dialogue and this is one of the points I brought up too.

Look at the section titled "Is There a 'Statute of Limitations' on Defense of Self and Property Rights in a Non-Aggression Principle Paradigm?"

 

 

 

 

[Arius]

"I think many of us who agree with a lot of your thinking come to different feelings about it because we see the current state of allocation of resources as itself having been set up by aggression and theft. And so to then wipe out history and say 'OK we’re just starting right now in the current economic situation. Starting now, nobody can aggress against anyone else.' is highly arbitrary and would be counter to all your views, for example, on parents, who remain responsible for the consequences of their actions long into the future." -Ster

The question remains: By what mechanism will this redistribution occur?

It's true, people have been robbing each other since they could.  That history of robbery somehow impedes our ability to not be violent to one another right now? 

I refuse to be a slave to the mythology of history and ancestor worship.  If I didn't do it, I'm not culpable.  If I did it, then the first step toward non-violence can be my seeking of justice.  It doesn't seem all that complicated.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Redistribution is a difficult can of worms. Industrial civilization eating the planet is a difficult can of worms. People being killed by the exercise of state power for the interest of a few is a difficult can of worms. Where's my can opener?[]

I admit self-defense may be a weak justification for a forced redistribution. But that does not eliminate the fact that most property was, and still is, taken by force. What to do?

I did some math (wow, a subversive anarchist that can do math!): the U.S. has approx. 3.7 million square miles of land and water (depending on how it's calculated, and by whom), and approx. 300 million people. Some land is obviously not supportive so knocking the total down to 3 million square miles and dividing gives us roughly 1/10 square mile for every man, woman, and child. A square mile is 640 acres, so that's 64 acres; a little more than 64 football fields.

This is not meant to prove anything, just to show how much land there is.

Here's an idea:

Upon eliminating the state and the state-sponsored corporations, a whole bunch of land would be effectively un-owned. Would it be fair to allow people without land to receive title for a plot? I assume that not all people wish to leave their current circumstances and move to the wilderness so they could sell it and remain in a city.

[Arius]

Upon eliminating the state and the state-sponsored corporations, a whole bunch of land would be effectively un-owned. Would it be fair to allow people without land to receive title for a plot? I assume that not all people wish to leave their current circumstances and move to the wilderness so they could sell it and remain in a city.

Now, that's an interesting idea.  Why is uniformly parceling-off previously state-owned land superior to a classic system of simply respecting claims of the users of occupied land?  Simply, why not homesteading?

Ignoring, for the moment, that titles to real estate are only assets under an economic model in which the state subsidizes rent-seeking behavior.  Cause the cost of defending unused property is currently involuntarily subsidized, and we won't have any of that in the free society.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Forgive my statist slip about title. Homesteading is a better way of putting it.

[Arius]

No worries.  I'm just curious if your idea is a variant on homesteading, or if it's something different.  I've seen more than a dozen different approaches to homesteading.  I'm fairly convinced that the real-world application of homesteading will resolve as a series of agreements between adjacent land owners.  Basically, each land owner will need some system of agreeable boundaries with each adjacent land owner.

I'm trying to conceive of how the boundaries could be meaningfully drawn and maintained without first allowing people to occupy the unused area.  Maybe it's me, but it seems backward to draw lines before anyone is using any of the land.  It seems to me, the lines on a map should be representative of the agreements people have made about land, rather than the lines acting as edicts to limit what agreements people can make.  What do you think?

[Guest darkskyabove]

Taking that a step further, isn't it conceivable, once force is removed from human interaction, the lines would carry little relevance to living. Given voluntary exchange, wouldn't neighbors come to recognize the benefit of cooperation. Personally, I would never infringe on my neighbors land without consent, and would consider allowing a neighbor to make use of part of my land which was dormant, assuming mutual agreement.

[JohnDJasper]

 

"I think many of us who agree with a lot of your thinking come to
different feelings about it because we see the current state of
allocation of resources as itself having been set up by aggression and
theft. And so to then wipe out history and say 'OK we’re just starting
right now in the current economic situation. Starting now, nobody can
aggress against anyone else.' is highly arbitrary and would be counter
to all your views, for example, on parents, who remain responsible for
the consequences of their actions long into the future." -Ster

The question remains: By what mechanism will this redistribution occur?

It's true, people have been robbing each other since they could.  That history of robbery somehow impedes our ability to not be violent to one another right now? 

I refuse to be a slave to the mythology of history and ancestor worship.  If I didn't do it, I'm not culpable.  If I did it, then the first step toward non-violence can be my seeking of justice.  It doesn't seem all that complicated.

 

@Arius, I don't think that your question is a valid response to darkskyabove's question.  No one can actually specify how a free society would work as it would be up to those free individuals to decide what rules they live by and what methods were considered valid.  What seems important for this thread is to hash out the validity of reallocation based on prior seizure by force.

@darkskyabove, I'm shooting from the hip on this but it seems to me that anyone who feels that they have a claim against a property owner for whatever reason, has every right to press their claim as they see fit.  I understand that sharia tribal custom is still practiced in parts of the world where instead of families continuously duking it out over an offense, they subject themselves to a tribal judge.  The judge, being a wise elder of the tribe as opposed to an elected or appointed government official) passes judgement and sentences as they see fit and if the families accept his judgement, the matter is seen as settled.  If not, they return to warring against each other.

In a world without rulers, an aggrieved individual will have the same freedom to seek justice and if they're not satisfied with any 3rd party ruling handed out (say from a DRMO?), who's to stop them trying to extract justice as they see fit?  They might lose to a superior opponent or be successful but then shunned by society as a whole or they might be hailed as a champion of the oppressed.  In such a system, their can be no statute of limitations other than that set by the individuals involved or what the local society will sanction.  In practice, this would be represented by the strength of the aggrieved's wish for justice versus the strength of the opposition or in other words, how bad do they really want to fight!

Here's an idea:

Upon eliminating the state and the state-sponsored corporations, a whole bunch of land would be effectively un-owned. Would it be fair to allow people without land to receive title for a plot? I assume that not all people wish to leave their current circumstances and move to the wilderness so they could sell it and remain in a city.

Besides the other objections raised to this idea, much of this "free" land is so because no one would consider trying to scratch a living on it.  If they could sell it, it probably wouldn't be for enough to make any real difference to their plight. Otherwise, a damn-fine plan.

Further to the topic in general, any society-enforced redistribution plan would be, in effect, forming a government and giving it the power to use force against individuals so a non-starter for a free society.

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Thanks for the input John.

I'm not advocating anything, yet. Threw this in the ring as a thought experiment.

[STer]

 

"I think many of us who agree with a lot of your thinking come to
different feelings about it because we see the current state of
allocation of resources as itself having been set up by aggression and
theft. And so to then wipe out history and say 'OK we’re just starting
right now in the current economic situation. Starting now, nobody can
aggress against anyone else.' is highly arbitrary and would be counter
to all your views, for example, on parents, who remain responsible for
the consequences of their actions long into the future." -Ster

The question remains: By what mechanism will this redistribution occur?

It's true, people have been robbing each other since they could.  That history of robbery somehow impedes our ability to not be violent to one another right now? 

I refuse to be a slave to the mythology of history and ancestor worship.  If I didn't do it, I'm not culpable.  If I did it, then the first step toward non-violence can be my seeking of justice.  It doesn't seem all that complicated.

 

I didn't advocate for any particular solution to this problem. I simply pointed out that there is a problem in applying the non-aggression principle because we haven't clarififed how we define what is self-defense and what isn't when there is a cycle of wrongs going back into eternity? I think this problem should be acknowledged and discussed, that's all.

Does the long history of robbery impede our ability to not be violent to one another right now? I would say it probably does play some role, yes. People feel aggrieved. They find themselves in positions they don't like and they sense there is some injustice involved in it, even if they can't put a finger on what it is. And they may, in many cases, be correct that there was an injustice involved somewhere.

What I asked in the piece is whether there is a statute of limitations. You seem to be saying that yes there is. So what is it? Say someone steals your land. If they manage to keep it and pass it on one generation, is the statute of limitations up? Or do your children have a right to defend that land against their children while still being in line with the non-aggression principle? Or is it two generations? Or three? Exactly where is the line drawn? I think the non-aggression principle has to include an outline on this. Maybe someone has given an answer to this, but I haven't heard it.

In any case, I think it's insufficient to say you are for the non-aggression principle without laying out a stance on specific tricky aspects of applying it like this.

[STer]

 

Redistribution is a difficult can of worms. Industrial civilization eating the planet is a difficult can of worms. People being killed by the exercise of state power for the interest of a few is a difficult can of worms. Where's my can opener?/emoticons/emotion-1.gif

I admit self-defense may be a weak justification for a forced redistribution. But that does not eliminate the fact that most property was, and still is, taken by force. What to do?

I did some math (wow, a subversive anarchist that can do math!): the U.S. has approx. 3.7 million square miles of land and water (depending on how it's calculated, and by whom), and approx. 300 million people. Some land is obviously not supportive so knocking the total down to 3 million square miles and dividing gives us roughly 1/10 square mile for every man, woman, and child. A square mile is 640 acres, so that's 64 acres; a little more than 64 football fields.

This is not meant to prove anything, just to show how much land there is.

Here's an idea:

Upon eliminating the state and the state-sponsored corporations, a whole bunch of land would be effectively un-owned. Would it be fair to allow people without land to receive title for a plot? I assume that not all people wish to leave their current circumstances and move to the wilderness so they could sell it and remain in a city.

 

Funny you bring up this idea because I recently looked up why Oklahoma is known as the "sooner state" and it relates to just something such as this.

[RestoringGuy]

 

What I asked in the piece is whether there is a statute of limitations. You seem to be saying that yes there is. So what is it? Say someone steals your land. If they manage to keep it and pass it on one generation, is the statute of limitations up? Or do your children have a right to defend that land against their children while still being in line with the non-aggression principle? Or is it two generations? Or three? Exactly where is the line drawn? I think the non-aggression principle has to include an outline on this. Maybe someone has given an answer to this, but I haven't heard it.

In any case, I think it's insufficient to say you are for the non-aggression principle without laying out a stance on specific tricky aspects of applying it like this.

 

I think there are good questions about limitations.    It is not force when your body and mind are absent from the property, because what is the measurable objective target of force?  A magical soul?  Nobody will answer directly, they will dodge that question.  I will argue there is compensation owed to all, because there are those we, by force, prevent from using land that we currently do not stand in front of.  The market will say how much, because compensation level set too high will become worthless to hold knowing those who did not yet receive it will side with the owner and demand elevated compensation from you for property you hold.  Cost of ownership simply becomes a convergent infinite series.  No aggression and no magic.

[STer]

 

 

What I asked in the piece is whether there is a statute of limitations. You seem to be saying that yes there is. So what is it? Say someone steals your land. If they manage to keep it and pass it on one generation, is the statute of limitations up? Or do your children have a right to defend that land against their children while still being in line with the non-aggression principle? Or is it two generations? Or three? Exactly where is the line drawn? I think the non-aggression principle has to include an outline on this. Maybe someone has given an answer to this, but I haven't heard it.

In any case, I think it's insufficient to say you are for the non-aggression principle without laying out a stance on specific tricky aspects of applying it like this.

 

I think there are good questions about limitations.    It is not force when your body and mind are absent from the property, because what is the measurable objective target of force?  A magical soul?  Nobody will answer directly, they will dodge that question.  I will argue there is compensation owed to all, because there are those we, by force, prevent from using land that we currently do not stand in front of.  The market will say how much, because compensation level set too high will become worthless to hold knowing those who did not yet receive it will side with the owner and demand elevated compensation from you for property you hold.  Cost of ownership simply becomes a convergent infinite series.  No aggression and no magic.

 

It sounds to me like you're commenting on absentee land ownership, which is another worthwhile topic and possibly in many cases even related, but still not exactly what I'm raising.

My question has to do with the definition of "self-defense" when it comes to the non-aggression principle in terms of time/generational change between the initial aggression and the defense.

In other words, the non-aggression principle must say "You shall not initiate force against another. You may only use force in defense of self and property..." and here is what I'm bringing up is that it must contain an additional clause saying "...where defense is defined as X."

Within that definition of defense it has to specify how long you have after an initial aggression to use force and have it still be considered defense rather than a new unjustified initiation of force. Or another way to look at it is, if someone steals from you, for instance, how long do they/their descendants have to successfully evade being brought to account before it becomes rightfully theirs and force can no longer morally be used to take back that property?

It seems clear that the answer can't be infinite. It's hard to fathom it being moral to use force against someone because of something done 100,000 years ago. But where is the line? What about 200 years ago? Or is it only 10 years ago?

[RestoringGuy]

 

It sounds to me like you're commenting on absentee land ownership, which is another worthwhile topic and possibly in many cases even related, but still not exactly what I'm raising.

My question has to do with the definition of "self-defense" when it comes to the non-aggression principle in terms of time/generational change between the initial aggression and the defense.

In other words, the non-aggression principle must say "You shall not initiate force against another. You may only use force in defense of self and property..." and here is what I'm bringing up is that it must contain an additional clause saying "...where defense is defined as X."

Within that definition of defense it has to specify how long you have after an initial aggression to use force and have it still be considered defense rather than a new unjustified initiation of force. Or another way to look at it is, if someone steals from you, for instance, how long do they/their descendants have to successfully evade being brought to account before it becomes rightfully theirs and force can no longer morally be used to take back that property?

It seems clear that the answer can't be infinite. It's hard to fathom it being moral to use force against someone because of something done 100,000 years ago. But where is the line? What about 200 years ago? Or is it only 10 years ago?

 

The two ideas are the same.  You should have no time.  It is always unjustified while occupied.  The descendants have to hold on to it, as does the guy who takes absentee land.  Neither was an aggressor, only a corrupt beneficiary.

[STer]

 

 

It sounds to me like you're commenting on absentee land ownership, which is another worthwhile topic and possibly in many cases even related, but still not exactly what I'm raising.

My question has to do with the definition of "self-defense" when it comes to the non-aggression principle in terms of time/generational change between the initial aggression and the defense.

In other words, the non-aggression principle must say "You shall not initiate force against another. You may only use force in defense of self and property..." and here is what I'm bringing up is that it must contain an additional clause saying "...where defense is defined as X."

Within that definition of defense it has to specify how long you have after an initial aggression to use force and have it still be considered defense rather than a new unjustified initiation of force. Or another way to look at it is, if someone steals from you, for instance, how long do they/their descendants have to successfully evade being brought to account before it becomes rightfully theirs and force can no longer morally be used to take back that property?

It seems clear that the answer can't be infinite. It's hard to fathom it being moral to use force against someone because of something done 100,000 years ago. But where is the line? What about 200 years ago? Or is it only 10 years ago?

 

The two ideas are the same.  You should have no time.  It is always unjustified while occupied.  The descendants have to hold on to it, as does the guy who takes absentee land.  Neither was an aggressor, only a corrupt beneficiary.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "you should have no time." Are you saying that if someone comes and takes your property, as soon as they occupy it, it now belongs to them? It seems like you're saying there is no such thing as theft because as soon as someone new occupies a piece of property, there is no justification to take it back. Or am I misunderstanding.

 

[Connor]

Just because our society has strayed so far from the principles of NAP and property rights, doesn't mean they don't exist at all.  If we didn't have any property rights we would all be starving or dead.  Thus, we don't have to wipe the slate clean, we simply have to universalize private property rights, privatize all coercively held land and resources, and extend the nap to all aspects of our life.  That being said, this is not plausible in the forseeable future.

[STer]

 

Just because our society has strayed so far from the principles of NAP and property rights, doesn't mean they don't exist at all.  If we didn't have any property rights we would all be starving or dead.  Thus, we don't have to wipe the slate clean, we simply have to universalize private property rights, privatize all coercively held land and resources, and extend the nap to all aspects of our life.  That being said, this is not plausible in the forseeable future.

 

How can we even talk theoretically about extending the NAP when the NAP fails to define what constitutes self-defense and what doesn't? The NAP seems to be one of, if not the, central ideas ancaps and libertarians focus on. Yet I have yet to hear someone explain to me precisely what constitutes self-defense and what doesn't. Until that is codified, the NAP is too vague to even use in debates, much less in actual implementation.

[JohnDJasper]

 

Just because our society has strayed so far from the principles of NAP and property rights, doesn't mean they don't exist at all.  If we didn't have any property rights we would all be starving or dead.  Thus, we don't have to wipe the slate clean, we simply have to universalize private property rights, privatize all coercively held land and resources, and extend the nap to all aspects of our life.  That being said, this is not plausible in the forseeable future.

 

But what counts as coercively held land and resources?  Is it the property held by the state at the time of dissolution or will it include property given (or sold below market rate) to private individuals in exchange for favors rendered to politicians or officials?

[STer]

 

 

Just because our society has strayed so far from the principles of NAP and property rights, doesn't mean they don't exist at all.  If we didn't have any property rights we would all be starving or dead.  Thus, we don't have to wipe the slate clean, we simply have to universalize private property rights, privatize all coercively held land and resources, and extend the nap to all aspects of our life.  That being said, this is not plausible in the forseeable future.

 

But what counts as coercively held land and resources?  Is it the property held by the state at the time of dissolution or will it include property given (or sold below market rate) to private individuals in exchange for favors rendered to politicians or officials?

 

And how far back in the series of landholders do we go? Can the descendants of the natives who originally lived on that land, if it was taken by initiation of force and/or broken treaties, claim that everyone after is coercively holding their lands? Do all lands belong to their original indigenous owners' descendants? If not, then why not? If the answer is only because so much time or so many generations have passed, then what is the cutoff? How much time or how many generations must land be held before its original owners or their descendants lose claim to it?

[Arius]

@Arius, I don't think that your question is a valid response to darkskyabove's question.  No one can actually specify how a free society would work as it would be up to those free individuals to decide what rules they live by and what methods were considered valid.  What seems important for this thread is to hash out the validity of reallocation based on prior seizure by force.

You are absolutely correct that no one can know how a free society would work.  However, if I can identify how some course of action necessitates the initiation of force, then it stands to reason to conclude such a course is not part of any possible model of a free society.  For example, we don't know how children will be instructed, but we do know that force won't be part of that process.  If I propose that children will be forced into schooling, then you know I'm not talking about a free society.  Now, I believe that there is no model of involuntary property redistribution which does not involve force.  It only stands to reason that any free-society-compatible model of property redistribution must be based on voluntary agreements.  That is, people may choose not to participate in the redistribution pool.  Thus, any property redistribution model which depends of force to attain a just distribution of said property, is incompatible with a free society.

 

[STer]

 

@Arius, I don't think that your question is a valid response to darkskyabove's question.  No one can actually specify how a free society would work as it would be up to those free individuals to decide what rules they live by and what methods were considered valid.  What seems important for this thread is to hash out the validity of reallocation based on prior seizure by force.

You are absolutely correct that no one can know how a free society would work.  However, if I can identify how some course of action necessitates the initiation of force, then it stands to reason to conclude such a course is not part of any possible model of a free society.  For example, we don't know how children will be instructed, but we do know that force won't be part of that process.  If I propose that children will be forced into schooling, then you know I'm not talking about a free society.  Now, I believe that there is no model of involuntary property redistribution which does not involve force.  It only stands to reason that any free-society-compatible model of property redistribution must be based on voluntary agreements.  That is, people may choose not to participate in the redistribution pool.  Thus, any property redistribution model which depends of force to attain a just distribution of said property, is incompatible with a free society.

 

 

You're still missing the heart of the matter. Force is compatible with the NAP as long as it isn't initiation but defense. Many of those urging forceful redistribution of land see it as a defensive use of force, not initiation. There is no getting around the fact that what is and is not defense will have to be very precisely defined. And nobody is even addressing that point around which all of this revolves.

[Arius]

Many of those urging forceful redistribution of land see it as a defensive use of force, not initiation.

I'm sure they do.  The question is, are they gonna immediately use force as a defensive solution or are they going to try a non-violent defensive solution first?  The free society is all about negotiation.  Righting wrongs without resorting to force is a pretty important development on that path.  If you think about it, our current theory of after-the-fact retribution-based justice is incompatible with the NAP.  Murdering the murderer solves nothing, nor is it NAP compatible.  By that same token,  forcibly-ejecting people from lands doesn't resolve the underlying dispute.

what is and is not defense will have to be very precisely defined

Well, since the idea of a central authority is antithetical to a free society, we can be sure there won't be any agency which mandates that definition.  My guess would be that each person will need to develop close, personal relationships with each other, nearby person.  Realistically, I'm thinking that every community is going to have a mildly different understanding of what does and does not constitute force.  However, without knowing what the theory of justice will be in such a society, there's no way to tell how that particular problem will be solved.  At best, we can be sure that the force/defense problem will be resolved through some kind of peaceful negotiation.

[STer]

 

Many of those urging forceful redistribution of land see it as a defensive use of force, not initiation.

I'm sure they do.  The question is, are they gonna immediately use force as a defensive solution or are they going to try a non-violent defensive solution first?  The free society is all about negotiation.  Righting wrongs without resorting to force is a pretty important development on that path.  If you think about it, our current theory of after-the-fact retribution-based justice is incompatible with the NAP.  Murdering the murderer solves nothing, nor is it NAP compatible.  By that same token,  forcibly-ejecting people from lands doesn't resolve the underlying dispute.

 

I agree that there may well be an obligation to use force only as a last resort, even when it is justifiable. This still won't get you out of the necessity to define when it is justifiable, though.

 

what is and is not defense will have to be very precisely defined

Well, since the idea of a central authority is antithetical to a free society, we can be sure there won't be any agency which mandates that definition.  My guess would be that each person will need to develop close, personal relationships with each other, nearby person.  Realistically, I'm thinking that every community is going to have a mildly different understanding of what does and does not constitute force.  However, without knowing what the theory of justice will be in such a society, there's no way to tell how that particular problem will be solved.  At best, we can be sure that the force/defense problem will be resolved through some kind of peaceful negotiation.

 

This is interesting because ancaps and libertarians speak of the NAP as the basis for a free society. But here you're saying that even that isn't the case because a free society may not agree with the NAP or they may define it differently than others do. And this is really surfacing what I'm getting at. It isn't enough to just talk about the NAP as gospel. This is a much more complicated issue. When I hear people talking about the NAP as this golden rule around which everything else will fall into place, I find it very oversimplified. And you've kind of conceded that here.

[Guest darkskyabove]

May I ask that this thread not degenerate into attack mode.

What was initially presented is not an easy question to answer.

I see both sides as having legitimate stances.

Is there a third side?

[STer]

 

May I ask that this thread not degenerate into attack mode.

What was initially presented is not an easy question to answer.

I see both sides as having legitimate stances.

Is there a third side?

 

I haven't seen anything attacking so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I'm also confused as to what you mean by "both sides." I didn't see a "sides" debate going on. I simply have tried to reinforce what you seemed to be asking in the OP which centers around how defense is defined, especially with respect to time passed between property changing hands. I haven't quite seen anyone give a straight answer to it but it isn't really a debate with sides, it's just a necessary part of using the NAP in any meaningful way in discussion or implementation.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Okay, let me try this:

Can we (not, necessarily, YOU) avoid arguing for the sake of arguing?

[STer]

 

Okay, let me try this:

Can we (not, necessarily, YOU) avoid arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

I couldn't be more confused. I haven't seen any arguing for the sake of arguing going on. Just a perfectly respectful discussion. I don't know where you're seeing any concern of arguing for the sake of arguing. If something particular stood out or is bothering you please point it out specifically. Otherwise, I think the discussion is going on along just fine and look forward to hearing more thoughts on the subject.

[Arius]

The only productive thing I have to add is that the OP question was, though I'm sure it happened unintentionally, a bit of a strawman.

Specifically, I don't know of anyone who makes the claim "a free market is of benefit
and fair to all".  I've seen claims like "The free-market most efficiently allocates resources", "The free-market is the most moral form of economy", and "The free-market gives each participant the greatest possibility for success".  However, each of these claims are about properties of the free market when compared to other types of economies.  For example, I would be correct in saying "A free market produces a better average quality of life for participants than a socialist market can", but wrong in saying "the free-market is perfectly fair and just".

I guess what I'm saying is, who made the claim "a free market is of benefit
and fair to all", and in what context?  Cause I'll tell ya, the king loses big-time in a free market.

In terms of "fairness", it's a little more complicated.  If you compare the "fairness" of the free-market to some super-ideal economy, I doubt the free market will win.  However, if you compare the free-market to the many flavors of mixed markets (some mixture of force and negotiation), you'll find that the free-market is on the top of the heap.  It's not the most-fair imaginable market.  Rather, it's most-fair from available markets.

Of course, all that said, I think that part of the question was just lead-in.  The question could easily be reworded "Isn't it most fair and equal to require all property to be redivided equally?" and the answers would be relatively unchanged, with the possible exception of revealing that the question is about a theory of fairness, rather than the necessary structure of markets.  If, for example, the question were "To be wholly consistent in the claim that communism is of benefit
and fair to all...", then the answers would all relate to the theory of fairness under a communistic market system.  So, I think the question you really want to ask is: What is a theory of fairness which can function without force, and how does it work as part of an economic structure?

Then you'd get really interesting answers, because each respondent could either answer the question by revealing their opinion of the ranking criteria of fairness, or just dodge.  For example, If you asked me my revised question, I might respond that the free-market gives all participants an equal opportunity.  By saying that, I would have revealed that I believe an equal quantity of opportunity makes things fair.  Alternatively, your asking the question the way you chose to revealed that you believe it is fair for everyone to have (or have rights to) an equal portion of what's materially available to be had (at least, at what you think-of as the beginning of the free-market economy).  Another person might respond that no one person could acquire absurdly-high quantities (more than a billion times the mean) of wealth in a free market.  By answering that way, such a person would reveal a tolerance for mild imbalance in their model of fairness.

As I think about it, there may not be a non-opinion answer to your question.  Suppose that's true, is there another way to ask the same question so it produces non-opinion answers?  Cause, as I see it, there are really two issues which need to be tackled.  The theory of fairness thing, and the structure of the economy thing.  The economy thing is just a technical problem that no one will be able to answer until we get there.  I think the theory of fairness thing might be purely a matter of opinion, but I can't say for sure.  I recommend focusing on a theory of fairness rather than the structure of a theoretical economy.  That way, we can answer all the isn't-it-most-fair-if questions at one time.

 

[STer]

 

The only productive thing I have to add is that the OP question was, though I'm sure it happened unintentionally, a bit of a strawman.

Specifically, I don't know of anyone who makes the claim "a free market is of benefit
and fair to all".  I've seen claims like "The free-market most efficiently allocates resources", "The free-market is the most moral form of economy", and "The free-market gives each participant the greatest possibility for success".  However, each of these claims are about properties of the free market when compared to other types of economies.  For example, I would be correct in saying "A free market produces a better average quality of life for participants than a socialist market can", but wrong in saying "the free-market is perfectly fair and just".

I guess what I'm saying is, who made the claim "a free market is of benefit
and fair to all", and in what context?  Cause I'll tell ya, the king loses big-time in a free market.

In terms of "fairness", it's a little more complicated.  If you compare the "fairness" of the free-market to some super-ideal economy, I doubt the free market will win.  However, if you compare the free-market to the many flavors of mixed markets (some mixture of force and negotiation), you'll find that the free-market is on the top of the heap.  It's not the most-fair imaginable market.  Rather, it's most-fair from available markets.

Of course, all that said, I think that part of the question was just lead-in.  The question could easily be reworded "Isn't it most fair and equal to require all property to be redivided equally?" and the answers would be relatively unchanged, with the possible exception of revealing that the question is about a theory of fairness, rather than the necessary structure of markets.  If, for example, the question were "To be wholly consistent in the claim that communism is of benefit
and fair to all...", then the answers would all relate to the theory of fairness under a communistic market system.  So, I think the question you really want to ask is: What is a theory of fairness which can function without force, and how does it work as part of an economic structure?

Then you'd get really interesting answers, because each respondent could either answer the question by revealing their opinion of the ranking criteria of fairness, or just dodge.  For example, If you asked me my revised question, I might respond that the free-market gives all participants an equal opportunity.  By saying that, I would have revealed that I believe an equal quantity of opportunity makes things fair.  Alternatively, your asking the question the way you chose to revealed that you believe it is fair for everyone to have (or have rights to) an equal portion of what's materially available to be had (at least, at what you think-of as the beginning of the free-market economy).  Another person might respond that no one person could acquire absurdly-high quantities (more than a billion times the mean) of wealth in a free market.  By answering that way, such a person would reveal a tolerance for mild imbalance in their model of fairness.

As I think about it, there may not be a non-opinion answer to your question.  Suppose that's true, is there another way to ask the same question so it produces non-opinion answers?  Cause, as I see it, there are really two issues which need to be tackled.  The theory of fairness thing, and the structure of the economy thing.  The economy thing is just a technical problem that no one will be able to answer until we get there.  I think the theory of fairness thing might be purely a matter of opinion, but I can't say for sure.  I recommend focusing on a theory of fairness rather than the structure of a theoretical economy.  That way, we can answer all the isn't-it-most-fair-if questions at one time.

 

 

OP wasn't claming land should always remain divided equally. He simply said that since the land allocation at present is not a result of the free market but all sorts of coercion for millenia, perhaps it would only be fair to start over from scratch with it divided equally and from there let the free market work as it will. And that's why I keep saying the question really has to do with how you deal with past aggression moving forward. Do we just write off thousands of years of violations of the NAP and attempt to start applying it now? Or do some people who are in certain positions as a result of NAP violations have a moral case for righting those wrongs before we start moving forward? If not, why not? If so, then in which cases do past NAP violations have to be resolved and in which not? 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Go ahead and dissect to your heart's content. And be very clear: this is not aimed at one, it might be aimed at all.

Be warned, if you wish to claim some philosophical consistency, check your references (meaning: your own post history). Every thread I start is subject to the same moderation. Derailing a thread, no matter what the motives or claims, is fair game. And game is meant in terms of prey, not playtime.

Changing a topic into a nit-pick session is far, far from productive. No wonder I have noticed many members disappear from active participation in just my few months. Does anyone wish to test the empirical evidence of this?

I will let the quotes speak for themselves (and this time it is personal, as opposed to the times this member claimed a generalization applied, specifically, to them):

N.B.: These are from different posts all in the same thread.

 

In other words, the non-aggression
principle must say "You shall not initiate force against
another. You may only use force in defense of self and property..."
and here is what I'm bringing up is that it must contain an
additional clause saying "...where defense is defined as X."

My question has to do with the
definition of "self-defense" when it comes to the
non-aggression principle in terms of time/generational change between
the initial aggression and the defense.

In any case, I think it's insufficient
to say you are for the non-aggression principle without laying out a
stance on specific tricky aspects of applying it like this.

I didn't advocate for any particular
solution to this problem. I simply pointed out that there is a
problem in applying the non-aggression principle because we haven't
clarififed how we define what is self-defense and what isn't when
there is a cycle of wrongs going back into eternity? I think this
problem should be acknowledged and discussed, that's all.

How can we even talk theoretically
about extending the NAP when the NAP fails to define what constitutes
self-defense and what doesn't? The NAP seems to be one of, if not
the, central ideas ancaps and libertarians focus on. Yet I have yet
to hear someone explain to me precisely what constitutes self-defense
and what doesn't. Until that is codified, the NAP is too vague to
even use in debates, much less in actual implementation.

You're still missing the heart of the
matter. Force is compatible with the NAP as long as it isn't
initiation but defense. Many of those urging forceful redistribution
of land see it as a defensive use of force, not initiation. There is
no getting around the fact that what is and is not defense will have
to be very precisely defined. And nobody is even addressing that
point around which all of this revolves.

This is interesting because ancaps and
libertarians speak of the NAP as the basis for a free society. But
here you're saying that even that isn't the case because a free
society may not agree with the NAP or they may define it differently
than others do. And this is really surfacing what I'm getting at. It
isn't enough to just talk about the NAP as gospel. This is a much
more complicated issue. When I hear people talking about the NAP as
this golden rule around which everything else will fall into place, I
find it very oversimplified. And you've kind of conceded that here.

I'm also confused as to what you mean
by "both sides." I didn't see a "sides" debate
going on. I simply have tried to reinforce what you seemed to be
asking in the OP which centers around how defense is defined,
especially with respect to time passed between property changing
hands. I haven't quite seen anyone give a straight answer to it but
it isn't really a debate with sides, it's just a necessary part of
using the NAP in any meaningful way in discussion or implementation.

 

How many times is it necessary to say the same thing? Go ahead and nit-pick that statement. The original post is not about how NAP does or doesn't define defense. Why the repetitive iteration of a different issue?

There appears to be a new term needed for the internet lexicon, right alongside troll: thread-stomper, n. a person who uses convoluted, complicated, or obscufatory language to appear superior.

 

 

 

[STer]

 

How many times is it necessary to say the same thing? Go ahead and nit-pick that statement. The original post is not about how NAP does or doesn't define defense. Why the repetitive iteration of a different issue?

There appears to be a new term needed for the internet lexicon, right alongside troll: thread-stomper, n. a person who uses convoluted, complicated, or obscufatory language to appear superior.

 

 

I guess we see things exactly opposite. I was repeating the question to keep the thread on topic. As I saw it, nobody was answering the key question and it was being dodged. As it stands I still haven't had one person answer the question so I keep trying to point out why that question is of utmost importance. And this is a pattern that predates this thread. I think this is a question that is crucial to this entire philosophy that remains unaddressed over and over. Repeating a question can not be "thread-stomping" but "thread-focusing" as long as it is a relevant question. And this is where your response surprises me.

I thought I was focusing quite precisely on what your OP was about. Your OP said that a problem is that while we can try to act fairly going forward, we still have to ask how past injustices get corrected. You proposed one idea - redistributing everything to start from scratch to undo past unfairness and make things start from a fair point going forward. I posted in support of your question, pointing out that your question does in fact boil down to a question about defense of property. Isn't the reason you are suggesting we should "start from scratch" because you are saying current distribution has involved people acquiring land unjustly, which means there are people who have a claim that someone has property that really belongs to them?

The only thing in question here is why you think what I'm asking is not the core question involved in your OP. It certainly seems to be to me. The only reason you could justify redistributing land to start from a fairer point is if you think that, in the past, land has been taken unfairly and coercively and that there are therefore people with justifiable grievances.

If you think what I'm saying isn't relevant to your OP perhaps you can rephrase your OP very concisely and clearly because I'm still under the impression that what I'm asking and what you're asking are tied right in together.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Ster: I appreciate you responding. You could have wrote me off as some ranting know-nothing.

I do understand the idea of attempting to "thread-focus". I may have gone overboard, but from your response I take it that you, also, feel frustration at times.

What might have been missed is that I have not advocated anything up to this point. The topic was raised as a question. Making pronouncements upon such a divisive issue does not lend itself to debate. Neither does nit-picking definitions. Both result in more pronouncements and more nit-picking.

Now, I will begin to advocate:

My true feeling is that it won't matter soon, because after the bankruptcy of current trends, chaos is bound to ensue. Where's our theory then?

The evidence I have is that I cannot trust anyone to look towards anything but their own selfish-interest. Notice I did not say self-interest. The difference being, self-interest implies looking out for oneself while open to the interest of others; selfish-interest implies looking out for oneself to the exclusion of others.

Reading between the lines of current discourse is the implication that anyone who advocates the status-quo, no matter the new words used to describe it, or the new system to implement it, avoids the fact that literally billions of people have been victimized by other people. What about them?

So, let's get rid of government. Woo hoo, the evil statists are gone. Now, how will that help the people with no land, no education, no prospects, no future.

Is industrial civilization right and proper? I've noticed that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians make no mention of the core of our problem: rampant growth. The theories all deal with how to allow growth by free exercise. Is growth, specifically, economic growth, a good thing?

Problem: Unsustainability. It doesn't matter how "free" the market is, if it runs out of resources, how free is it?

Granted, privatization might result in better use of resources, but who receives the benefit of privatization? If government held lands were offered for sale, who could buy them?

Do you see how many other issues are exposed by the initial question?

Taking current industrial civilization as a given and trying to apply a fix seems hollow to me.

Afterword:

I cannot claim to have any, much less all, the answers. What I can ask is for people to think about this stuff, and not quibble with my use of some word, in some context. I have not attempted to write some philosophical treatise, subject to logical dissection.

Notice I wrote ask...