Anarchists, question for you...

[Neil Desmond]

They're both wrong.

Nobody has the right to just draw a map and say, on the basis of that map, that they own everything inside whatever perimeters they drew.

Bingo; without a state no one has any rights to any property.

 

[Neil Desmond]

To be fair he didn't say they arbitrarily claimed it as territory, he simply said there was a dispute over claims to property boundaries.

Yeah, that was part of the idea for that question: assume each party went through the proper steps (or at least believed that they did) in an anarchist society to acquire the plots of land.

 

[Neil Desmond]

If they don't claim land as their own, then what kind of boundaries would they be disputing? The answer to how their dispute could be resolved depends on that.

Each party claims the boundaries indicate the land that they "rightfully" acquired and owned, and that they have the witnesses, receipts, paperwork, etc. to back up their claims. The problem is that for some reason the perimeters cross over each other resulting in a dispute. I want to know about the tools, techniques, methods, resources, etc. for resolving such a dispute.

 

[erowe1]

No, they're both just responses to the same question that you asked. What you've written here is very different from the point I was trying to make.

But we still have you stating in post #68 that you believe the state is wrong.

We're in "phase 1", a fairly well-structured society and government. If we try to implement "phase 2", anarchism, and it is an unstable system for society, then my concern is that we would be bound to end up in "phase 3", a monarchy, oligarchy, or authoritarian regimes.

I don't see anything about those options that excludes their being "well-structured."

My question has been, all along, if we were to implement "phase 2", anarchism, would it be feasible or unstable? Pick one: (a) feasible, or (b) unstable. Which is your response, a, or b?

Can't I just say, I don't know? In fact, if what you mean by phase 2 is a world without any theft, murder, or kidnapping, then I think it's impossible even to get there, much less sustain it. But since I affirm that theft, murder, and kidnapping are always wrong, I have no choice but to hold out the ideal of statelessness.

I also have another question for you: do you want to take us from what we have now to the "phase 3" stuff: a monarchy, oligarchy, or authoritarian regime, or not? (Yes or no?)

I would probably prefer monarchy to what we have now, I'm not sure.

 

[erowe1]

Each party claims the boundaries indicate the land that they "rightfully" acquired and owned, and that they have the witnesses, receipts, paperwork, etc. to back up their claims. The problem is that for some reason the perimeters cross over each other resulting in a dispute. I want to know about the tools, techniques, methods, resources, etc. for resolving such a dispute.

What possible thing could any witnesses and receipts say that would indicate that anyone owns everything within any boundaries drawn on a map?

 

[Neil Desmond]

But the situation posited wasn't as general as "material." It was specifically about properties drawn on maps.

Maybe it could be; suppose there a river and somehow it was established that at some point down that river person owns the "rights" to that water; further up the river, another person owns the property (land) that the river runs through & this person figures that they own that water too and decides to collect it resulting in no water for the person who's supposed to own it further down the river. Neither one knew of the other's existence or what they "own", so they agree to have it settled by their favorite DRS. Still, what is the criteria for determining who has to do what to resolve the dispute?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

What I'm trying to find out is how would they resolve it, to determine who is right. What steps do they take to say it's person a or person b, or how do they go about doing so?

BTW, we have "dispute resolution services" in many forms now, courts, arbitrators, etc. Why do we need anarchism to have a DRS if they already do exist now?

 

[erowe1]

Bingo; without a state no one has any rights to any property.

If I whittle a tree branch into a baseball bat, why do I need a state to be able to say that it's mine?

 

[erowe1]

Maybe it could be; suppose there a river and somehow it was established that at some point down that river person owns the "rights" to that water; further up the river, another person owns the property (land) that the river runs through & this person figures that they own that water too and decides to collect it resulting in no water for the person who's supposed to own it further down the river. Neither one knew of the other's existence or what they "own", so they agree to have it settled by their favorite DRS. Still, what is the criteria for determining who has to do what to resolve the dispute?

Again, anyone claiming to own the river would be wrong. They might as well claim to own the sun and the air.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Bingo; without a state no one has any rights to any property.

Of course they do. Property is first obtained by homesteading it from nature. Once property has been claimed by mixing labor with unowned resources, it can then be traded or gifted to others. You can only legitimately acquire property through one of these voluntary, economic means.

The state is not only unnecessary for rights to property, they necessarily must negate your property rights in order to exist.

An expropriating property protector is an inherent contradiction.

 

[Neil Desmond]

But we still have you stating in post #68 that you believe the state is wrong.

No, that's not what I said in post #68. Are you going to keep saying that I said something, so I go back and dig it up, just to find that I never actually said anything such a thing? From now on, please just quote directly and post it all in the same post.

I don't see anything about those options that excludes their being "well-structured."

Ok, I can fix that:
Phase 1: a form of government with many kinks ironed out. What we have now in the US, a constitutional republic with a bill of rights and predominantly free-market capitalism; the average person is fairly happy.
Phase 2: the anarchists apparently have plans that will make just about everyone very happy, that is, until dreaded phase 3 becomes the new "law of the land" after being in phase 2 for only maybe a couple months at the most (perhaps?).
Phase 3: authoritarian regimes have taken over; they've confiscated everything from everyone, including the kitchen sink. No one (except, of course, the rulers' cronies, minions, families, and friends) has a bill of rights, elections are at best a dictator's idea of a joke, the penalty for most felonies is beheading, people are oppressed, miserable, and more than half are starving.

Can't I just say, I don't know? In fact, if what you mean by phase 2 is a world without any theft, murder, or kidnapping, then I think it's impossible even to get there, much less sustain it. But since I affirm that theft, murder, and kidnapping are always wrong, I have no choice but to hold out the ideal of statelessness.

Then let's look at it this way, the risky one is that it is (a) feasible & the cautious assumption is that it is (b) unstable. Would you rather be cautious or risky (do you want to risk people's lives)?

I would probably prefer monarchy to what we have now, I'm not sure.

Well, if you decide to take the risk, implement anarchism, find it's unstable and end up with something from phase 3, you sort of have another gamble; you could end up with a monarchy - one that makes everyone serfs or slave, but it's what you prefer over what we have now (so ostensibly you'd be happy), or, you won't and instead end up with an oligarchy or authoritarian regime, which aren't going to make many people very happy at all.

 

[fisharmor]

Does anarchism exist anywhere in the world? Has it ever existed anywhere in the world? From what I'm aware of, the globe is saturated with states. All these states exist because anarchism isn't feasible - I would surmise.

I'm still on page 1 (busy day today) so I'll start with the obvious.
If you buy into the evolution argument, then there's an awful lot of prehistory where the state didn't exist.
Even in grade school we learn about Greek "city-states", because there was no state outside the city.
Historians would lead you to believe there were therefore no people outside the city, but how can that possibly be?
The answer to your question is axiomatic. Statelessness is the default position of mankind.

To answer more specifically, yes, there are examples of statelessness which I've brought up here ad nauseum, and I'm not going over it again because every time the statist shit-chuckers find some minutia to obsess on and start screaming "AHA!! THAT'S NOT A DANCING ANGEL, DUMBASS! YOUR PIN IS WORTHLESS!!!" and frankly I'm fucking tired of dealing with those shaved apes.

There are some thoughts I have to offer on this, though.
First, every example of statelessness I've found has ended as a result of what amounts to a war crime. The best documented stateless society ended due to some serious Adolph Hitler level of shit happening.

Second, the fact that the state will go to any length - up to and including systematically executing 40% of a population - to end statelessness isn't exactly an argument in favor of statism.

Third, if you accept the proposition that in general a less powerful state is desirable, then you're left with little option than to advocate for statelessness. A less powerful state becomes a more powerful state, until it collapses. Then the cycle continues again. You really have no meaningful option other than to argue for its complete dismantlement.

 

[Neil Desmond]

What possible thing could any witnesses and receipts say that would indicate that anyone owns everything within any boundaries drawn on a map?

Basically, that's what I'm trying to find out.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Yes, I basically am doing that, because that's the possibility that concerns me. I don't need to address the other possibility, because I find it desireable. That doesn't somehow make my conclusion wrong. If I and others don't want to take the risk of transitioning from what we have to anarchism lest we end up with something worse than what we have now, then I and others shouldn't be forced to go along with the transition. Or, do anarchists want to force people society to transition? Oh wait, that would be contradictory to their position. Well, I'm still back at square 1: is anarchism feasible?

You see it as unfeasible because you hold many predetermined notions about what it is, how it must come about, what it would look like, and what the results would be. It would do you a lot of good to take a step back when imagining you have all the answers when it comes to what it would look like and how we might get there.

BTW, I'm also going to second the recommendation of For A New Liberty. It's a good read on this topic. A great primer. My first real introduction, and recommended by Ron Paul.

For A New Liberty - Murray N Rothbard


The whole book is good, but I couldn't put the 2nd half down. I'm sure you'll especially find the last chapter interesting.

 

[erowe1]

No, that's not what I said in post #68. Are you going to keep saying that I said something, so I go back and dig it up, just to find that I never actually said anything such a thing? From now on, please just quote directly and post it all in the same post.

Your exact words were:

Oh, sorry if it wasn't clear that the answer was an emphatic "yes." The answer is YES, and emphatic one.

 

[Neil Desmond]

If I whittle a tree branch into a baseball bat, why do I need a state to be able to say that it's mine?

Because without the state, you have no right to claim that it's yours. That can also apply if there is a state, if you stole that branch from someone else.

 

[erowe1]

Basically, that's what I'm trying to find out.

It sounds like you're trying to justify the state by arguing that the state is a necessary tool for anyone who wants to claim ownership of that which they do not own.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Again, anyone claiming to own the river would be wrong. They might as well claim to own the sun and the air.

Yeah.

 

[erowe1]

Because without the state, you have no right to claim that it's yours.

Why not?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Because without the state, you have no right to claim that it's yours. That can also apply if there is a state, if you stole that branch from someone else.

Posting this again, since apparently you didn't watch it the first time.