We may already live in an Ancap world

[zippert]

An idea came into my mind:

 

We already live in an Ancap society. The government owns everything. We all are violating their property by living in their houses, on their land, using their roads etc. . So the government kindly allows us to stay at their property if we pay a certain amount of taxes and obey their rules. If not, they put us in jail, but they aren't violating the NAP, they act only in self defense, since we were violating their property. They have to put us in jail because thats the only way to kick us out without violating the property rights of others, i.e. other states.

 

Seems to me that NAP boils down to a matter of property rights.

 

So who owns stuff?

 

And how do we know that it isn't the government who owns it all?

 

I already read Rothbards theory of property, so i am aware, that property in his theory comes from first getting the ressources out off the ground, but almost all goods in the world haven't come into possession this way.

[Magnus]

All goods most certainly have come into possession that way -- from the ground, to someone, and passed in an unbroken line of voluntary transfers to you and me.

 

Other than being the first user of an unowned object, the other way to acquire property rights is by voluntary trade with the prior owner. That's how most of us get most of our stuff.

 

As to your larger point, the State's claim of ownership is illegitimate. As an initial matter, the organization of that entity was not voluntary. Their magnanimous decision to give me a (meaningless) vote in their operation doesn't change the fact that I never agreed to join.

 

Second, they never traded with owners to acquire their property. Stealing doesn't transfer title.

 

But in general, I agree with your basic premise. We do already live in a state of anarchy, but not because the State owns it all. It's because the State is an illusion.

 

Anarchy is always here. The State is illegitimate. They're just an especially prominent gang. They don't run things. They just pretend to. Society is mostly self-run. The Statists' main gift is not violence but propaganda -- taking credit for other people's work, and blaming others for the problems that the State causes.

 

Anarchism doesn't have to be argued into existence. It's the essential, unavoidable nature of all human societies. The presence of a well-organized armed gang in our midst doesn't change that. They only limit the sphere of anarchic interactions slightly.

 

Even prison society is mostly anarchic.

[cynicist]

Yeah this seems like a cogent argument until you examine how property rights originate, which is that you own your body and the effects of exercising it. The problem with saying the government owns things is that the government doesn't actually exist in reality, it is just a collection of people who use violence to steal from others. So since the government is just an abstract concept that refers to a collection of individuals it can't actually own anything anyway, even before getting to the issue of whether taking things by force is legitimate or not.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That would mean the government owns all Stef's arguments. The government produced those arguments and Stef rents them. 

[kcq]

how is the social contract in any way a NAP

[Seansoup]

The government cannot own anything because, like cynicist stated, government is an abstract concept.

Government is a collection of individuals who feel that they are obligated to enforce their will on others and do not own my body, mind or work.

How do goods come into the category of ownership? Goods are either produced or traded by voluntary participants. Goods cannot be owned by a concept.

[King David]

Of course we already live in an an-cap world, that is the only world that is real.  Any thing that is perpetrated by the government will have some illusory concept that can justify their validity their purpose.

 

The most obvious example I can think of is the justice system, in were if you to have a son per say, and lets for dramatic sake say that he was murdered.  Now, the state will try and provide to you a concept of justice in locking away the perpetrator of this terrible hypothetical crime, or even by gassing the poor devil.  

 

The reality is that nothing could ever bring your son back and all that gassing a guy or gal would accomplish is to make it so somebody else is at a loss for their child.

 

The only real justice in this case would be that your son was never murdered in the first place.  At least in Leviticus Law, you may be rewarded some oxen for your loss, which in my mind, even in todays age where I would have little use for oxen, they would still be preferable to some sick fantasy by which torturing the perpetrator on the taxpayers (my) dime(s) is meant as compensation and the serving of "Justice".  I believe in Kierkegaardian existentialism this would amount to a "for itself" concept of serving justice.  "In itself" would be something like your concept of justice ie you still have a son (please correct me if this is wrong).

 

So here is a fun game, pick any government service you want and try and identify the illusory concept they seek to promulgate.  Hint: they can't actually keep you safe or healthy.

 

King David