Issues with Anarcho-Capitalism, Part 1: Logic

[EGreg]

Hi there. I joined the board a while ago, but haven't really posted anything serious until now.

I have spent the last 10 years discussing politics with all people holding all kinds of viewpoints, from objectivists to libertarians to liberals to conservatives and others. As someone who is building a company to empower people and unite communities, I believe that technology lets us decentralize power structures and help people do things better. I've been fortunate enough to meet and correspond with many political thinkers thinkers, such as Noam Chomsky, etc. I would say that my political leanings, at the end of the day, wind up somewhere between Social Democrat and Techno-Liberal.

Preamble:

Although I admire Stefan Molyneux's convictions, I think he is too ideological and incorrect on many issues. Many times he invites people to provide "real arguments" to challenge his viewpoints, so it's frustrating that I have never been able to get ahold of him. Probably his show is so popular that he gets tons of mail a day. I would be very happy to discuss issues of anarcho-capitalism with him on his show or in person, but since I'm on this board, I may as well bring them up here, so as to get a real discussion going.

To say at the outset: I believe that Capitalism enjoys the status of a quasi-religion in the United States. Every time it's mentioned, someone has to add how amazing it is, and every time someone points out a flaw, proponents are very quick to point out the problem is *never* with actual Capitalism, because Capitalism is just (presumably) the natural state of man, voluntarism in its essence, and the problem must be somewhere else (hint: Government, which exists everywhere and at all times). I realize that presenting problems with Capitalism here is a bit like presenting problems with Mohammad in Saudi Arabia, but nevertheless, I know there are plenty of people who are open to reason and logical discussion. I feel a bit like Sam Harris challenging SJWs: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-end-of-liberalism so at the outset I need to give my bona fides: I think Capitalism is an amazing system for many things. Free trade, low barriers to entry for enterprises, and bankruptcy protections (the latter is not anarcho-capitalist) have led to a lot of innovation. However, there are many externalities as well. One may say the free market is A and B deciding C is for dinner. Most problems come down to this.

Anarcho Capitalism:

While Capitalism is great, I don't think it's perfect, nor do I think it's the inevitable and only system which can develop under voluntarism. There are anarcho-socialism and many other possible systems people can voluntarily enact. But they, and anarcho-capitalism, are just ideologies, they are not achievable in practice.

Here is my first problem with anarcho-capitalism: it is incoherent.

Suppose we take a principled, deontological approach to it. We insist that our entire society must be built upon the Non Aggression Principle. Anything that violates the principle is out.

Well then, what is private property? I think it's fair to define it as a monopoly right to exclude others from the use of some resource.

And how are you going to exclude them? By force. So that's what it means when people "enforce" private property. Preferably by some private security or paramilitary group, cause government violates NAP.

But wait, men with guns? Aren't they initiating force? "No," says the anarcho-capitalist. They are not, because they are using "defensive force".

But what is "defensive force"? "Well, one example is defending property."

Ah, so we're kind of begging the question here. We're carving out a specific exception for "property", whatever that is.

Well, some anarcho-capitalists believe in Intellectual Property. I can go ahead and use "defensive force" to go and attack a peaceful person who I never met and never had any problem with, because they built a contraption that infringes on my "intellectual property". They "stole my idea". So, we can own ideas?

Other an-caps say no, you can't own ideas. But now we are stuck. Some people believe you own the idea and I infringed on it. Some believe I didn't. Now you use force, and we're stuck: did you initiative force, or not?

Maybe you believe in copyright but not patents. And I share a movie that I bought that you spent $50 million making. And now no one buys your movie anymore. So you attack me. Because your business model is built on the idea that people can "own" bits inside other people's computers. It creates artificial scarcity, and extracts rents.

What is Property?

OK, you may say, intellectual property is just an exception, like age of consent. No system is perfect, and in those cases we just have to resort to whatever the majority of people think in the area. Well, that's exactly what happens with laws and jurisdictions.

Let's suppose (as Stefan probably does) that you can't own ideas. So, can an individual own large bodies of water, like Lake Superior? Can they own a huge forest?

Suppose I don't recognize your right to (read: use force to exclude people from) large swaths of land. I'm in good company: many Native American tribes did not believe in such extreme land ownership. Even John Locks, whose idea of "homesteading" many libertarians use, explicit said about homesteading that a person should not be able to legitimately own far more land than can feed him and his family. I have never heard anarcho-capitalists admit that this was John Locke's actual position about "homesteading".

And suppose John Locke was wrong, and you set out to prove to me that, no, in fact one should be able to own everything they "homestead". So Johnny Appleseed can plant a tree every 50 square feet and he can come to own plots of land the size of Kentucky? Even if he abandons each spot for 50 years? What about adverse possession, easements, and all those other aspects of actual property law, don't they get in the way of the simple idea of "homesteading"?

Consequentialism

And suppose you wanted to prove to me that one should be able to own property of any kind and exclude people from its use, by force if necessary, and this doesn't violate the NAP. How will you go do that? Typically you will use consequentialist arguments! "Look, if we don't pay content creators for their work, who will make content?" "Look, Capitalism leads to greater prosperity than Socialism". These are questions that deal with facts about the world, and we can explore them, and you may even be right. But that admits that consequences matter and not just arbitrary principles. Milton Friedman was one of the few consequentialist libertarians and his arguments are far different from then NAP. They are arguments like "no one spends another's money as well as he spends his own". I am far more receptive to consequentialist arguments, but that also opens the door to the possibility that Social Democracy, Open Source Software, Science, etc. may be better at achieving some outcomes than Capitalist systems.

Force

So, the NAP definitely can apply if we define "initiation of force or threat of force" to be against a person's body. That is well defined. How about against a person's mind or psychological well being? Maybe.

But once you start arguing that "the 1000 acre forest" is an extension of you, or an entire lake, and peeing in "MY LAKE" is the same as having sex with "MY BODY" and therefore the private cops arresting you are not "initiating force", you lose a lot of people. It's a stretch to believe that private property has no limits. Maybe chattel, like owning a pencil, or food that you're going to eat. But owning 1 million apples that you're not going to eat? Probably not everyone will agree. So what if they don't agree, and eat those apples or squat in "your" 1000 acre wood and refuse to leave? How will you get them out without using force? The whole system of property falls apart if you can't enforce it. At some point, the NAP requires people to recognize your unlimited right to property. And they may not do that.

And also, the NAP says nothing about what force is proportional. Suppose I find myself on your land, or I pee in "your" bushes, in your back yard. You call the cops, and they ask me to leave. I say I don't want to. Can they now put me in a cage where I will be raped? Why not skip all that and you just come and keep the intruder as a sex slave for 30 years? I mean, what kind of a system is it where you base everything on one principle, and insist all other legal principles are illegitimate?

And if other legal principles are legitimate, then you're right back to jurisdictions and laws. Some people believe some things, and in other areas, other people believe other things. Depending on where you live, people may have different laws, different ages of consent, different ideas about property.

So my point is ... basing your entire worldview on the NAP is incoherent, unless you don't believe in property. But anarcho-capitalism is all about property. Bottom line ... how are you going to get that anarcho-socialist voluntarist intruder out of your forest if you don't believe in initiating force? How are you going to get him from not re-selling that movie you worked so hard on?

All this is just the first (and most direct) issue I have with anarcho-capitalism.

[Goldenages]

On 8.9.2017 at 4:45 AM, EGreg said:

Free trade, low barriers to entry for enterprises, and bankruptcy protections (the latter is not anarcho-capitalist) have led to a lot of innovation.

Bankruptcy protection is not capitalism, it is state intervention, it is awarding privileges to certain groups with political influence. Just imagine the handaxe makers back then had the power to protect their profession - still no metal tools today. And what about the crisis 2008, when taxpayer money was used to prevent the banksters from going bankrupt? Not really innovative, rather theft.

 

On 8.9.2017 at 4:45 AM, EGreg said:

Well then, what is private property? I think it's fair to define it as a monopoly right to exclude others from the use of some resource.

Shure. My car, my house. Don´t you exclude others from the use of yours?

 

On 8.9.2017 at 4:45 AM, EGreg said:

Ah, so we're kind of begging the question here. We're carving out a specific exception for "property", whatever that is

Ah, no.  All I do is control who uses my car and enters my house. However you are not forced to make it that way. Its perfectly fine if you let anybody who stops by live in your house, or lend your car to whoever needs one. But remember, banruptcy protection is not capitalism.

 

On 8.9.2017 at 4:45 AM, EGreg said:

Well, some anarcho-capitalists believe in Intellectual Property. I can go ahead and use "defensive force" to go and attack a peaceful person who I never met and never had any problem with, because they built a contraption that infringes on my "intellectual property". They "stole my idea". So, we can own ideas?

Other an-caps say no, you can't own ideas. But now we are stuck. Some people believe you own the idea and I infringed on it. Some believe I didn't. Now you use force, and we're stuck: did you initiative force, or not?

Interesting question. I would say, let reality decide: One anarcho group can set up laws that legally allow to own ideas, patents and so on.

Another group does not. So everybody is free to join whatever he prefers. Then we will see what works better. I would assume, that in the long run the group who protects ideas will make the better movies.

On 8.9.2017 at 4:45 AM, EGreg said:

And also, the NAP says nothing about what force is proportional. Suppose I find myself on your land, or I pee in "your" bushes, in your back yard. You call the cops, and they ask me to leave. I say I don't want to. Can they now put me in a cage where I will be raped? Why not skip all that and you just come and keep the intruder as a sex slave for 30 years? I mean, what kind of a system is it where you base everything on one principle, and insist all other legal principles are illegitimate?

And if other legal principles are legitimate, then you're right back to jurisdictions and laws.

First, anarchy does in no way imply do depart from laws and a legal system. It only departs from state power.

Second, in the west there is plenty of experience regarding what force is proportional, and what fine is appropriate. I think compensation is a good idea - if one pees in my forest, well, I would say thats for free. If one pees in my house, he would have to pay for a new carpet or work for it.

regards

Andi

 

[RichardY]

@EGreg I have been listening to Stefan for a while and I have never heard him say that he is Anarcho-capitalist. I have heard him say that Ludwig von Mises Austrian Economics is the most accurate explanation of economics. The later Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism became subtly(or not so subtly) political and undermined itself. Stefan Molyneux & Jordan Peterson "When you have an Ideology, you become small relative to that Ideology."

Property: Private Property (Capitalism), Public Property (Socialism), Property (Ethics) or the Annihilation of Property as a concept all together (Enlightenment or "True" Communism). The problem with the later is it is often associated/correlated with mass bloodshed, it does not necessarily have to be so.

NAP: Is not the whole truth. I do believe that UPB however is a reasonable methodology for fleshing out Ethics. I acknowledge your point that is possible to influence a persons mind without them being aware of it to deleterious effects, through the unconscious (imo), I know I have heard Stefan say that he believes in the John Locke (Tabula Rasa mind) similar to Ayn Rand. I believe this is incorrect and go with a priori knowledge and "unconscious mind" though Stefan has used the term unconscious so perhaps disagrees with a priori part. Not sure if Immanuel Kant said this because I heard it on a Youtube video that when it boils down to it, what counts is a person having "a Goodwill" or special faculty. I know Nietzsche ridiculed this and Stefan has criticised this as giving too much authority to people in positions of influence, contributing to WW1.

Milton Friedman: There was/is a video of him on YouTube(before he died) saying basically he thought the Federal Reserve and Central banking was garbage(corrupt) and Rothbard was essentially right with gold backed currency.

The State: Given demographics(Personalities "Gene sets" and I.Q) Stefan has argued more for the nightwatchmen state recently, "Plato's Noble Lie". During the Georgian period there was often a regency council in the background, given the relative craziness of the Monarchy, though that was eventually superseded by democracy and corporatism.

[Mole]

You seem to be taking these concepts such as property and force as sort of laws or policies. They are not. In fact, in anarcho-capitalist society, such concepts and their definitions will be rarely sought. It is a grave mistake to believe that there is an individual or a bunch of individuals enforcing such principles. That is a statist or platonic mindset. In an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals adhere to reality, not to some concepts they make up. Whenever some conflict arises, the questions are not who owns what according to what definition. The questions asked are based in reality; who was responsible for what, how can I gain, what are the consequences of this, how are these things causally linked, etc. In the case of Johnny Appleseed, perhaps someone will seize those trees. So what? In a rational society, those trees will be distributed in an efficient and moral manner according to the self-interests of individuals. There is no need to properly define property. All that is asked is for you to be rational. That means accepting that you are responsible for your actions, have the ability to recognise and manipulate your environment, etc. And foremostly to stop believing in the falsehoods that blanket your innate instinct of what it means to be rational.

Of course, consequences matter but that doesn’t mean I’m a consequentialist. A consequentialist says that ONLY consequences matter.

[EGreg]

I would be very glad to go on Stefan's show (Stefan do you read these posts?) and discuss all this with the man himself. But also I am happy to respond to all comments in my thread as well as I can without building an unreasonably large wall of text (and making y'all pay for it .

> Bankruptcy protection is not capitalism, it is state intervention, it is awarding privileges to certain groups with political influence.

Well, as I said in the thing you're replying to, it's not anarcho-capitalism, but it has certainly helped a lot of entrepreneurs start businesses and take risks they would not otherwise be able to. In Europe, there are far more protections for employees and business owners are personally liable if things go wrong. A lot of people would say the USA system is much more conducive to free enterprise and entrepreneurship, and indeed has produced far more startups (Silicon Valley is just one example) than all of Europe has in that same time. Many people would therefore call the system with bankruptcy protection and limited liability for companies (because that is what it is) more capitalist than the system which does not have it. However, it is not more anarcho-capitalist. Please don't confuse anarcho-capitalism as being the only type of capitalism or capitalist thought there can be.

As for me, I personally think that limited liability is a great thing. It allows companies to face unlimited market discipline and competition and go bankrupt if they don't make what people want, while the people running these companies get to take risks. As usual in Capitalism without a daddy government, it's buyer beware, and each company is responsible for itself. I am all for keeping companies separate from human beings. That's the point of limited liability protection and even in an anarcho-capitalist society, the courts might have such rules. It's just violates methodological individualism, but not every Capitalist believes in methodological individualism. See my other post about people forming organizations and believing they do in fact own things, etc.

> And what about the crisis 2008, when taxpayer money was used to prevent the banksters from going bankrupt? Not really innovative, rather theft.

You are confusing bankruptcy protection (and limited liability of company owners) with bailouts. The latter prevent bankruptcy, they are very clearly not the same thing. Bailouts of "too big to fail" institutions happen when too many people come to rely on them. This is a result of centralization of power, and is not necessarily a good thing. It's like Twitter or Facebook being bailed out because too many people depend on them, and they are a single point of failure. Centralization of power, as we know, has its own pluses and minuses. The key, in my opinion, is continually figuring out how to use technology to keep the pluses and avoiding the minuses while decentralizing. This is what I am personally involved in.

>> Well then, what is private property? I think it's fair to define it as a monopoly right to exclude others from the use of some resource.

> Shure. My car, my house. Don´t you exclude others from the use of yours?

Well those are the easy cases. Easy cases are always... easy. How about if you owned an entire forest, or a lake? Or if you owned ideas? Who gets to tell everyone "stay away from this man's forest/lake/ideas ... or ELSE FORCE WILL BE USED"?

Anyway we both agree that private property requires force to be used, to enFORCE it. When the resource is large enough, I can complain that I don't agree with your property right. Just like you don't complain about a house having rules, but you complain about a city or state having rules. When the scale gets large enough, you complain about the institution of government while others can complain about the institution of private property. In the case of entire privately owned cities, like Disney World, the complains turn out to be one and the same thing. The anarcho-capitalists presumably start to sound like "statists" because hey, if you don't like Disney World's rules, just don't go there. That's what I would tell you about cities which are democratically run as well. No one owes you a city that runs exactly according to how you want it (provided you even have a consistent position on every single policy a city should do).

>> Other an-caps say no, you can't own ideas. But now we are stuck. Some people believe you own the idea and I infringed on it. Some believe I didn't. Now you use force, and we're stuck: did you initiative force, or not?

> Interesting question. I would say, let reality decide: One anarcho group can set up laws that legally allow to own ideas, patents and so on.

> Another group does not. So everybody is free to join whatever he prefers. Then we will see what works better. I would assume, that in the long run the group who protects ideas will make the better movies.

Bingo. This is the heart of the matter. Once you get down to the brass tacks, the solution you described is exactly what people have today. Different jurisdictions have different laws. If you don't like a particular city, you can move to another city. Some countries have more Intellectual Property protections than others. Maybe they produce better movies. What you've just done is describe a consequentialist (outcome: better movies) statist (don't like it, move) position. That's fine! That's reality, as you said.

> First, anarchy does in no way imply do depart from laws and a legal system. It only departs from state power.

As an aside: other ancaps would disagree with you. They want polycentric law systems only.

But if we assume – as you and I do – that in any given area there must be one consistent set of laws operating, then we support the concept of jurisdictions. And in that case, states are just large organizations which have jurisdiction within the state. Cities are also organizations (in the past they had walls, etc.) that have jurisdictions. If you committed a crime in a city and then ran to another city, they could use long arm agreements between them to extradite you back to the city where you committed the crime, and try you according to that city's laws. This is basic practical and legal stuff that's been around throughout all of human history. It's just that anarcho-capitalists have singled out this term the state which is supposed to single out some specific institution, which in fact just describes large organizations being run in various ways, in practical reality. There is no the state, or the government. There are organizations, and each one has its own policies and government. You are born in a city or a state, and/or you move to one. You can move to others. That's all. Therefore, this distinction anarcho-capitalists make is a false dichotomy. That's what I talk about in part 2. In here, however, I talk about the NAP being incoherent.

> Second, in the west there is plenty of experience regarding what force is proportional, and what fine is appropriate. I think compensation is a good idea - if one pees in my forest, well, I would say thats for free. If one pees in my house, he would have to pay for a new carpet or work for it.

It's not about what you say, though. It's about what the organization which is actually enforcing the laws protecting your property thinks. For example, in New York State, there are at-will employment laws which nullify any contracts that force a person to stay at a job, and even many non-compete agreements. Certain interest rates are considered unconscionable and not enforced even if written into the contract. Age of consent is 16 or something. Meanwhile in other states, there may be other laws. It's not up to the individual and contracts are only written documents, ultimately it's up to the organizations which are enforcing the laws.

And that's what I mean. Anarcho-capitalists think there's just one, well defined idea of "property", and it's absolute. But there isn't. There are all kinds of property ownership, from fee simple to alloidal title and all have a long legal history. These property laws are subject to caveats such as adverse possession and easements and escheat all of which have legal history in actual cities and states. That's reality, and it's a lot more complicated than anarcho-capitalists seem to think with the NAP. Given all these rules, in one area, me using an easement may not tresspass on your property, in another it may tresspass. The NAP by itself is useless for figuring out both who initiated the force, as well as what retaliatory measures or relief you are entitled to. The decision rests with the courts in the jurisdiction you live in, i.e. the organizations which enforce the laws. And your other rights are protected in much the same way. In the jungle no one protects them. So this dream of getting rid of "the state" is a bit silly because "the state" is just a large organization and jurisdiction.

> I acknowledge your point that is possible to influence a persons mind without them being aware of it to deleterious effects, through the unconscious (imo), I know I have heard Stefan say that he believes in the John Locke (Tabula Rasa mind) similar to Ayn Rand.

I'm not sure I made that point. But certainly you'd support a jurisdiction nullifying a contract where a child agreed to enter into indentured servitude for 20 years in exchange for a week's worth of lollipops. Right? As far as the names... I am not much for Argument from Authority, just pointing out that the same guy who actually popularized the word "homesteading" said that you shouldn't own too much. Just like Darwin's actual work is called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" but the latter is almost never mentioned.

> You seem to be taking these concepts such as property and force as sort of laws or policies. They are not. In fact, in anarcho-capitalist society, such concepts and their definitions will be rarely sought.

Well Goldenages up there agrees with me. Someone's got to enforce the property rights otherwise what's the point? If you say you own a lake, but can't stop anyone from using it, then in what sense do you own it? I can say I own the air, so what? LOL

> In an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals adhere to reality, not to some concepts they make up. Whenever some conflict arises, the questions are not who owns what according to what definition. The questions asked are based in reality; who was responsible for what, how can I gain, what are the consequences of this, how are these things causally linked, etc.

I agree. People adhere to reality even now, in regular "statist" society. The questions are asked now also, and if they can't resolve them, they go to a court. And consequences are considered. It was ever like this in civilized societies. What is the difference?

> In the case of Johnny Appleseed, perhaps someone will seize those trees. So what? 

Well it depends if Johnny Appleseed is able to defend "his property". If he is able to enlist the help of an organization (or recruit his own militia etc.) to protect a large swath of land, guess what, that organization becomes the new "men with guns" enforcing whatever it is that Johnny wants. And instead of a tyranny, it happens that many people organize together and publicly publish laws, and have courts refer to public laws (not secret ones like FISA), and that's considered far better than just chaos and "might makes right".

> In a rational society, those trees will be distributed in an efficient and moral manner according to the self-interests of individuals. 

They may be distributed efficiently, or they may not be. Maybe the rich will get far more than they can eat, and be constantly throwing away food, while others starve. Who knows. Under today's systems, things are distributed too. Maybe they could be distributed more efficiently, maybe not. How do you evaluate what is moral and what is not? You've already admitted that someone can just seize those trees. So they may violate the NAP. And what are you going to do about it? What people normally do is they band together and make organizations that enforce laws. And that is "the state".

 

[smarterthanone]

Most of your issues come down to well why wouldn't someone just own the whole forest or all of lake superior, or enforce intellectual property. Well they may be ABLE to do it in theory, but in PRACTICE its impossible because of capitalism.

Imagine you want to claim the whole forest and lake superior to just be vacant land. Well then go protect it. How would you do that? Well you need probably at least 20 armed men and trucks and guns and security cameras and stuff. Cost in todays USD would be about $400k to pay each man 20k per year. 5 trucks at maybe $100k, 20k in guns and ammo, another 150k in fencing, security cameras and other measures in key areas. Total: $670k PER YEAR and I think I am seriously low balling it.  now how much money does a forest and a lake earn you per year..... $0.

1. 99.9% of the population is not capable of actually claiming and enforcing such claim due to the cost.

2. Even if someone did do this, they would receive a poor return even if they get great enjoyment out of it, they would have an incentive to disown, sell, etc the land asap. I know if I made $1 million dollars per year in income I would not spend 670k of it on vast land that is essentially unusable.

Now when would someone actually do this AND it be acceptable by NAP and be acceptable by society and there be a return or incentive for someone to do it?

Example: If they did this but also invested 100 million dollars in building a giant town and renting it out, then whats the problem? Investment + Work + natural resource is sufficient in claiming such natural resource.

 

For your other example with the intellectual property. You could enforce it only if you are willing to PAY for it. Intellectual property such as a book or music or something of that nature we are talking $10 per unit. So is there a way to pay an enforcer to track down all the end users and travel around with a group of 5 guys and demand payment at each door? Not monetarily feasible. The time it would take your guy to fly from your office in say NY to Michigan and go from one side of town to the other getting people on a list and people not being home and stuff, he would be lucky to collect $50 a day when to hire him plus expenses would be closer to $400 per day. What about a producer? What if in China they produce the same product as a duplicate in a manufacturing plant. Will you hire a whole army to shut down their operation? You could but its still not financially feasible. Will you really hire Blackwater to go over to China and take out 2 thousand people and a factory and an office building? Don't forget they have their own security forces.

TLDR Companies do not make nearly as much money as you think they do. Only a government that makes far more money than any company can do such things. So technically it could be done. Financially it would not be feasible or provide any kind of incentive to do such things.

 

[RichardY]

Rambo could retire them all, with a $20 Bowie knife. Then he'd probably shoot up the town.  

"I could have killed 'em all, I could kill you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go. Let it go." Rambo First Blood.

[Jsbrads]

Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick discusses this in detail. Quickly, in anarchy all the land is still available and people capture land and begin to use it. They agree to a Title based land ownership and divide the land. They can also agree to navigable waters being free acces to all. If there is a resource on my land and I form a tool from it, I can trade that to someone else, for other tools, resources, food, land or even give it away. 

Alternately imagine a tribe of 100 ppl living on an island of 100 sq miles. They are hunter gatherer. Then one day they discover agriculture and they decide to subdivide their into 100 plots. They find they can quadruple their population and still be better fed than before and further division of plots are still allowed...

During the advent of the printing press, Jewish intellectuals were faced with the problem of intellectual property. They concluded that there is no such Right and nicely requested that people allow a new author to sell the books in his First printing so he should not face a loss when creating a benefit for society.

[EGreg]

"Most of your issues come down to well why wouldn't someone just own the whole forest or all of lake superior, or enforce intellectual property. Well they may be ABLE to do it in theory, but in PRACTICE its impossible because of capitalism."

No, that's just a theoretical / philosophical parry. I'm saying that all the things you're against in a democracy, you'd be for IF someone privately owned the jurisdiction. Like if DisneyWorld was privately owned they'd be able to have all kinds of wacky rules and you'd say "if you don't like it, you don't have to go there". And I'm saying the same thing is true of states. If states had a contract that you sign when entering (as countries do which aren't under one empire) then voila, you have a contract. And if cities had it, same thing. Suddenly everything becomes legit. And if you argue that you aren't bound by the contract because you were born in the city and never left, then that's just a matter of scale. I can apply the same argument to private property: if you were born in an apartment and never signed a contract with the building, does that mean you can now squat rent-free your whole life, and no one can apply force to take you out?

I'm not talking about the PRACTICAL but the THEORETICAL aspects of the complaints anarcho-capitalists make. The PRACTICAL aspects don't even get to that point, because people band together into organizations, and organizations join into larger organizations, and make agreements between them. All "government" is, is administration of those organizations.

[Gavitor]

What does any of this bullshit have to do with a lack of rulers and voluntary associations/interactions?

Lets start simple. Do you own yourself?

 

[Jsbrads]

Private property owners cannot violate your Rights (Bill of) that includes barring you from carrying a firearm to protect yourself.

Trespassing is really strict if someone says, don't come on my land and then you trespass. If someone allows you on his land and then later asks you to leave, you do have to leave; however, if that is a island in the South Pacific, you aren't committing a crime if you continue to stay on the island until you find a reasonable alternative (island) and method (eg boat) to travel with. While standing on someone's front lawn... you have to walk out to the street.

[smarterthanone]

On 10/25/2017 at 12:49 PM, EGreg said:

I'm not talking about the PRACTICAL but the THEORETICAL aspects...

What? I mean in theory nothing stops someone from building 100 nukes and destroying the world in anarcho capitalism. Except there are no incentives to do so and many incentives not to do so. So realistically its a non issue. Same with someone who owns the world or some ridiculous amount of property. In theory its possible. Practically its impossible. Not because government. *Facepalm* Commence the mental masturbation but be ware you will be disappointed because you will not experience a mental orgasm on this question, just furiously jacking until you are exhausted and pass out.

[Jsbrads]

Smarter, I’m not sure what your argument is. There are people who do want to burn the world down (Vegas shooter). As individuals those people have limited ability. Those same individuals can attain government power and do far worse damage (Nazi Germany).