"Rationalia"

[EclecticIdealist]

My argument is from a purely propertarian-anarcho-capitalist paradigm. If you do not believe in absolute property rights, that's fine. But under that paradigm, I can exert my will in absolutist terms within my property. That is what it means to be fully in control of your self and property. If a non owner thinks he can "demand different rules" while he is in my estate, he can f*** off. Anyone in my property who does not agree with my rules is a de-facto invader of my estate and an enemy of myself - and I can use any amount of force and appropriation I want because enemies don't have rights. It is Kingly. Again, if you do not agree with this ideology, I have no qualms about it. But this is how it works in practice.

If you maintain that you can exert your will in absolutist terms within your property, no person that does not have a death wish or is not grossly self-destructive could ever be persuaded to venture onto your property. The idea absolute authority over others when on one's property may be Kingly, but it is certainly cannot be deemed ethical or moral by any rational sense as it condones anything that one might do to another that might knowingly or unknowingly venture on such property, and does not in any way preclude the taking of greater amounts of territory by mere assertion.

[dsayers]

You do not address my positions because you just reassert the argument I am countering.

Saying that you have property rights at the same time I have property rights does nothing to refute my claim that we exist in the same moral category. My statement is an absolute and is always true. While you are free to not allow me onto your land, I am free to not allow you on my land or make use of my body, etc. Same moral category... still.

[EclecticIdealist]

You have it backwards.  You can't get an is without an ought in the first place -- if you want to know what is true, you ought to follow reason and evidence.

No, I do not have it backwards. You may need to read more carefully if you wish to understand what I'm claiming without assuming that I have it backwards. I am not talking about making changes to what is (reconfiguring the universe or your conception of it), I am talking about rationally inferring that something should be or should not be a particular way based on such conditional relationships For example, the notion that if one wants to know what is true, one ought to follow reason and evidence to discern it is an objective truth. "One should want to know what is true," is NOT an objective truth, but a matter of sentiment that cannot be rationally inferred from the objective truth that "one ought to follow reason and evidence if one wishes to discern what is true."

 

Also, along the same lines, if you are rejecting the validity of normative statements, on what basis can you tell me to change my behavior?

I am not rejecting the validity of normative standards, but I do dispute the claims of normative statements being objective truths rather than collectively held subjective preferences. For example, most people prefer to engage in nonviolent cooperative efforts of mutual benefit, but some do not. This objective fact does not change the nature of the collectively held preferences from being subjective, collectively held sentiments to objective truths. Thus, my basis for telling you to change your behavior is the presumption that you wish to adhere to a particular, normative standard of behavior and my belief that I know what adherence to that standard entails.

[Will Torbald]

If you maintain that you can exert your will in absolutist terms within your property, no person that does not have a death wish or is not grossly self-destructive could ever be persuaded to venture onto your property. The idea absolute authority over others when on one's property may be Kingly, but it is certainly cannot be deemed ethical or moral by any rational sense as it condones anything that one might do to another that might knowingly or unknowingly venture on such property, and does not in any way preclude the taking of greater amounts of territory by mere assertion.

 

For any real anarcho-capitalist society to be truly free from collective government, the rule of absolute property rights has to be enacted. If people demand a list of "human rights" to be shared among property owners, that is, in itself, a government or a minarchy at least. It doesn't change the fact that the realistic outcome of people owning land would turn them into kings within it. And it worked that way for a long time in history, if I think correctly. It doesn't mean I will kill you, since if I am already so tyrannical, I would have gates and control over who comes in and out. Why would anyone want to come in if I am so immoral? Maybe I want, and they want, the company of such people. Those services would be provided given the demand for debauchery is unlimited.

[EclecticIdealist]

For any real anarcho-capitalist society to be truly free from collective government, the rule of absolute property rights has to be enacted. If people demand a list of "human rights" to be shared among property owners, that is, in itself, a government or a minarchy at least. It doesn't change the fact that the realistic outcome of people owning land would turn them into kings within it. And it worked that way for a long time in history, if I think correctly. It doesn't mean I will kill you, since if I am already so tyrannical, I would have gates and control over who comes in and out. Why would anyone want to come in if I am so immoral? Maybe I want, and they want, the company of such people. Those services would be provided given the demand for debauchery is unlimited.

Any claim to "real anarcho-capitalism" is immediately ended the moment you (or any other) as absolute monarch, dictator, or despot over your land is considered to have absolute dominion, and ownership over anyone and everyone you allow to dwell upon it under any agreement for any length of time. No longer is it anarcho-capitalism, now it becomes de facto feudalism and the only thing that has changed is that you are temporarily lord and king of your land until someone stronger than you declares it to be their land, and you their property.

 

Property is not the basis of liberty no matter what the misguided anarcho-libertarians might say. Universal Individual Sovereignty is the supreme ideal for any that value absolute liberty. It is inherently so; it is a tautological definition. If you wish to maintain an anarcho-capitalist society, it must be based upon the principle of Universal Individual Sovereignty. Property rights must always be subordinate to Liberty if one is to preserve Liberty; otherwise the poor, the weak, the unintelligent, the misfortuned, the deliberately oppressed, will all becomes slaves to the strong, the rich, the intelligent, the fortunate, the oppressors, the powerful.

 

You can be a Propertarian if you so choose, but don't go fooling yourself into thinking that as such you're an anarcho-capitalist. Such anarcho-capitalism would only be a means to your end, one way or the other.

[Will Torbald]

Any claim to "real anarcho-capitalism" is immediately ended the moment you (or any other) as absolute monarch, dictator, or despot over your land is considered to have absolute dominion, and ownership over anyone and everyone you allow to dwell upon it under any agreement for any length of time. No longer is it anarcho-capitalism, now it becomes de facto feudalism and the only thing that has changed is that you are temporarily lord and king of your land until someone stronger than you declares it to be their land, and you their property.

 

Property is not the basis of liberty no matter what the misguided anarcho-libertarians might say. Universal Individual Sovereignty is the supreme ideal for any that value absolute liberty. It is inherently so; it is a tautological definition. If you wish to maintain an anarcho-capitalist society, it must be based upon the principle of Universal Individual Sovereignty. Property rights must always be subordinate to Liberty if one is to preserve Liberty; otherwise the poor, the weak, the unintelligent, the misfortuned, the deliberately oppressed, will all becomes slaves to the strong, the rich, the intelligent, the fortunate, the oppressors, the powerful.

 

You can be a Propertarian if you so choose, but don't go fooling yourself into thinking that as such you're an anarcho-capitalist. Such anarcho-capitalism would only be a means to your end, one way or the other.

I agree, but that's what arguing from a position does. It doesn't mean I ascribe to it. However, if your Sovereignty ethos requires a government to be enforced, you are also arguing basically for what the original founding fathers wanted with America. The problem is that we know how that turned out and governments grow like a balloon once they're set off. But it's true, I also think that an ancap society would be temporary until someone conquers you again.

[EclecticIdealist]

I agree, but that's what arguing from a position does. It doesn't mean I ascribe to it. However, if your Sovereignty ethos requires a government to be enforced, you are also arguing basically for what the original founding fathers wanted with America. The problem is that we know how that turned out and governments grow like a balloon once they're set off. But it's true, I also think that an ancap society would be temporary until someone conquers you again.

Actually, I'm arguing for the Ultimate Ideal of what some of the Founding Fathers envisioned, not what the majority of them actually wanted with America. The majority of the Founding Fathers actually wanted a lassiez-faire government to go with their lassiez-faire capitalism. Some envisioned this occurring in conjunction with slavery, whereas others did not. Given the fact that the world is dominated by Nations with governments, I do not see a way for any Nation of significant size or possessing significant resources to exist without some form of National Government and ability or arrangement with another Government for their National defense against aggressing foreign powers. Perhaps you can enlighten me to how such a Nation might exist for any significant period of time without any National Government in today's Geo-political environment?

[Will Torbald]

Actually, I'm arguing for the Ultimate Ideal of what some of the Founding Fathers envisioned, not what the majority of them actually wanted with America. The majority of the Founding Fathers actually wanted a lassiez-faire government to go with their lassiez-faire capitalism. Some envisioned this occurring in conjunction with slavery, whereas others did not. Given the fact that the world is dominated by Nations with governments, I do not see a way for any Nation of significant size or possessing significant resources to exist without some form of National Government and ability or arrangement with another Government for their National defense against aggressing foreign powers. Perhaps you can enlighten me to how such a Nation might exist for any significant period of time without any National Government in today's Geo-political environment?

 

I don't know how to do that, honestly. Either the entire world leaves governments at once, or those who do will be swarmed by those who don't. But my point about the government ballooning isn't so much as to say that it shouldn't exist, but that strong countermeasures against leftist statists who wish to grow the power of the state would have to be taken. Like what Hoppe says when democrats and communists would have to be physically removed in order to maintain a libertarian order since democracy will inevitably lead to people voting for free stuff from the guv'ment. In a sense, that would look like a fascist-libertarian country if it's not an oxymoron.

[AncapFTW]

I don't know how to do that, honestly. Either the entire world leaves governments at once, or those who do will be swarmed by those who don't. But my point about the government ballooning isn't so much as to say that it shouldn't exist, but that strong countermeasures against leftist statists who wish to grow the power of the state would have to be taken. Like what Hoppe says when democrats and communists would have to be physically removed in order to maintain a libertarian order since democracy will inevitably lead to people voting for free stuff from the guv'ment. In a sense, that would look like a fascist-libertarian country if it's not an oxymoron.

I think you only need an area that's free of government, and enough people in the area that will stand up to the attempt to use violence against them.

[Will Torbald]

I think you only need an area that's free of government, and enough people in the area that will stand up to the attempt to use violence against them.

 

No such habitable area available, and not enough people against already established military powers. A total pipe dream.

[dsayers]

I think you only need an area that's free of government, and enough people in the area that will stand up to the attempt to use violence against them.

Why do you need area and standing up? You can be free within your own mind RIGHT NOW. Those who are help those who aren't. State power is found in perceived legitimacy and slave on slave violence. Both of these exist in the mind. So it is in the mind where change can be made.

[AncapFTW]

No such habitable area available, and not enough people against already established military powers. A total pipe dream.

Seasteading?