LibertarianSocialist Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Not going to argue about ideas in this thread, but would like to know more about how ancaps might transition to a stateless society. My questions are as follows: What is to be done with illegitimate property titles? Do they revert to non-ownership for homesteading, or do they continue on? How are illegitimate property titles divided if at all? If legitimate acquisitions are not expropriated, how would legitimacy be decided in a contemporary society on the brink of transition? Could general levelling be on the table? How is violent suppresion/resistance by conservative forces (state & it's beneficiaries) overcome? Do you consider resistance (violent or otherwise) by these bodies likely? If so, how would these power structures be overcome & dismantled? What specific sectors of society will likely be the motive force for change? Is there a set of intellectual or material preconditions for transition? Would transition be peaceful or might it entail a violent social revolution? Would a an-cap society utilize any transitional forms of organization before the conclusive implementation of pure laissez-faire organization? What is the likely outcome of a failed transition? Thanks.
shirgall Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 A social change where everyone distrusts (and therefore truly limits) those with any power over them, and to resist consolidation of those powers into singular entities, might lead to an evolutionary change instead of requiring a revolutionary one.
WasatchMan Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Through a moral revolution where people understand that the initiation of force is immoral. Moral revolutions are extremely practical, people used to own people for thousands of years, however through a moral revolution in understanding that is immoral, it changed rather quickly in society as a whole. (to paraphrase Mr. Molyneux) Do you think it mattered how the cotton would get picked to people who understood it was immoral to own another person?
shirgall Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Through a moral revolution where people understand that the initiation of force is immoral. Moral revolutions are extremely practical, people used to own people for thousands of years, however through a moral revolution in understanding that is immoral, it changed rather quickly in society as a whole. (to paraphrase Mr. Molyneux) Do you think it mattered how the cotton would get picked to people who understood it was immoral to own another person? Agree that people are practical. I seldom get much traction with "initiation of force" but I get further with "others with power over you". We have to make freedom personal. 1
Alan C. Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I think Murray Rothbard addressed this in The Ethics of Liberty. An illegitimate property claim (ie. acquisition via expropriation rather than via homestead or exchange) would become nullified and revert to an unowned state until homesteaded by the first appropriator, or returned to whomever can prove legitimate title. Resistance to violence by conservative forces can be effectively overcome only by depriving them of resources through economic ostracism and non-cooperation. I wouldn't resort to violence unless no other option was available (eg. your life was in immediate danger).
Recommended Posts