Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[TheTexan]

No, no ,no. In anarchism there is no geographic area with a certain law...there are contracts (or social contracts if you prefer). You can have one law, and your neighbors on either side can have second law and a third law. In fact, you can sign up for any extreme or the other based on whatever contract you prefer. Polycentric law isn't limited by area...except where they run into states at the edges of a free territory. But in that free territory, there is no land area that have specific laws for all those that enter it. Look up panarchism.

I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary, and there is no contract, explicit or implicit. The only implicit contract is voluntarily living next to these people, but that can hardly be considered voluntary IMHO.

Once you agree to interact with others in your community, you are bound by the common law of the community. For example, if you kill someone, they will decide if it was justified, not you, for example. This is derived from natural law, not from any government, or any organizational entity.

There is simply no getting around it. Wherever you go, there will be common law. The only way to avoid common law is to avoid interacting with people entirely.

And the word "nation" is dangerous. It implies nationalism...a form of collectivism that always preceeds a state.

A nation who's culture is non-aggression? I'm ok with that.

I'm against nationalism and statism. So the idea an anarchist "nation" will occur bothers me. A free territory will exist, not a nation. But I agree, a shared philosophy must be shared initially

That's kind of the definition of a nation. Sharing a culture. Nation itself is not a scary word. It's the State you're worried about.

Well here we have a property rights issue, but not like you assert. If you decide to hand over ownership to anyone, you no longer have ownership. When you join a commune and decide "property is theft", you no longer own your home, you "possess" it. You can't reneg on that contract because you no longer like the deal. The collective now owns the property. You can leave anytime you want, with an expensive lesson learned. If you did the same but retained property rights (like a market anarchist community), then you can sell your property or not, whatever, as it is still yours. But you're suggesting this person break their agreement after they have already essentially given away their property to the collective commune...that's not possible.

Incorrect. What you just said will lead to tyranny, because it creates an unbreakable reliance on the commune, and it breaks the principle that only people can own land.

What I mean by that, that only people can own land, is you're not selling your land to the community, you're selling the land to the people of the community.

So, what that also means, is that by selling the land to the people of the community, and simultaneously joining the community, you are in also effect selling the land to yourself. To say otherwise implies there is a sovereign government capable of owning land.

So let's say this community has 39 people. You add your land to theirs and make it 40. When you add your land to theirs, it's implied in the contract that you are not selling your home to the 39 people, you're purchasing stock in the assets of the 40.

If you own stock in something, you have the right to liquidate that stock. That's the bottom line. You can agree to a contract where you explicitly give up any and all of your assets to join their community, but this is an entirely different contract than what I proposed.

On the first contract, you sold your land to the others in the community in exchange for partially owning the assets of the community as a whole.

On the second contract, you sold your land to the others in the community, for them to allow you to live on their property.

It's two entirely separate contracts. The second contract, while voluntary, I don't think anyone would agree to it. The first contract, unless there is an explicit means of dissolution or an implicit agreement by shared philosophy, there is a significant risk of losing your liberties as described.

If that contract were interpreted as even you interpreted it, you would have created a State by allowing a community to become sovereign.

That's like saying you sell me your property, and live there as a renter. But you don't like my rules, and after you spend all the money I gave you to buy the property, now all of a sudden you want to claim it's yours again.

No sir, that is not what I said. Only people can own property. You can't sell it to a community. If you sell your land to the people of a community, and become part of the community, you rightfully own a share of their assets unless stated otherwise by the contract.

This doesn't create a state....the land area claim of social contract monopoly (law monopoly in an area) does.

Again, only people can own property. Which implies that everyone in that commune owns property. You would deny him of the property that he owns, because you believe he gave it to the community. By siding with the community rather than the individual, you accidentally allowed the community to have sovereignty without being aware of it.

So it does create a State. Even an enlightened individual such as yourself allowed this to happen, which is why this principle is so extremely important.

 

[Lets_Race]

Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

Question for non-anarchists: I disagree with your proposed government defense. Should I be shot for disagreeing with you?

 

[ProIndividual]

I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary, and there is no contract, explicit or implicit.

No, it won't. You can sign a legal contract in anarchism that allows you to murder other people who voluntarily also sign that contract. You can't stop such idiots without AGGRESSION. There is NO uniform standard of law, because anarchism is non-utopian. Utopia implies uniformity. If you have areas with laws subject to geography, you have minarchism. You can have Sharia Law in anarchism, but only among willing participants. Yep...you can cut someone's hand off for theft, if they agree to that ahead of time. Most sane people will choose contracts like described in the videos I asked you to watch...panarchism, if you will. But it is perfectly alowed to harm others in anarchism if they give their permission. We aren't banning boxing, just assault. We aren't banning S&M sex, just rape. If you wish to be assaulted or raped, you can be...as long as those doing so are also voluntary participants in these sociopathic activities. If you rape, assault, or murder people NOT voluntarily engaged in your contract, then you will pay penalties in renumeration AND likely retribution. What renumeration and retribution you pay is determined via the mechanisms in video number 4.

All law is contractual...even now. It's just a forced contract now. In panarchism (an anarchist legal order), social contracts will be voluntary have NO relation to geography within a free territory. If the whole world is a free territory, law has ZERO relation to geography. Law is only contractual. You can pay for defense services in law (insurance, police, etc.), or you can join a non-profit contract, or a mutual exchange contract (if poor) when seeking arbitration of disputes.

Arbitration is a service. To suggest there is no contract is to suggest you can force others to arbitrate your disputes...that's decidely non-anarchist. No one can be forced to serve on juries like in the state, and no one can be forced to arbitrate as a judge. The entire system is contractual in anarchism. Please watch the videos I linked you too.

Once you agree to interact with others in your community, you are bound by the common law of the community.

No you are not, that is minarchism. If you sign a contract that says "drugs are illegal to me and those in the contract, and exposure to drugs is a "crime" in our contract", then you will pay for that insurance. Your neighbor might be a pothead. You may be exposed to weed smoke, let's say. He isn't apart of your contract. He isn't going to held to any "law" in your contract. What happens is, your contract is a service wherein (let's assume for simplicity it's a pay-for contract, not non-profit; but you can extrapolate or watch the videos) you pay a premium for legal insurance. If you don't want to be exposed to drugs but live next to a pothead not in your contract, your legal service can't recoup funds from your exposure to drugs from your neighbor. So, your premiums for that legal service will be higher than if you didn't live next to a pothead. It's just legal insurance.

If you did live next to another contract-mate in your same legal service, then your premium would decrease. But there is nothing making you live near other contract mates in anarchy. NOTHING.

So, back to the example...how would your legal service handle this dispute resolution? You would be paid a pre-set claim amount on your legal insurance once it's established by the company that you've indeed been exposed unfairly to weed smoke. Your premiums would then go up, I'd expect. This makes it advantageous for you to either drop the anti-drug aspect of your contract, OR to move away from the exposure problem (your neighbor). NOTICE, at no time is your nonviolent neighbor ever governed for his drug use. It's got nothing to do with him whatsoever. He didn't sign your contract of silly drug rules. His contract says he can smoke weed all day long on his property, and if you happen to smell the smoke that's your problem with your contract company...not his.

A third neighbor has a contract that says only harm is a crime. He is assaulted by the weed head neighbor one day. Since harm and fraud is never allowed in anarchism (coercion), you can only be harmed or defrauded (no matter what contract company you use) if it's self defense OR you signed a contract with another person(s) that allows you to be legally assaulted, BUT that only applies for you and those contract-mates. Since the pothead didn't sign any such contract with the assaulted neighbor (and neither did he), the pothead had governed the innocent neighbor without permission (coercion). In anarchy any governing of anyone else who is an adult sovereign w/o their permission or out of anything but self defense is prohibited (notice I didn't say it's totally prohibited if it's voluntary).

So how is this resolved? Watch the videos. It specifically covers two people with different contracts, where one is assaulted, and the other is the assaulting party.

The point is simple: law is strictly contractual It's got nothing to do with social norms. Anarchism is specifically against social norms as a form of tyranny. Individuals are sovereign, not communities. I hope you'll verse yourself in anarchist legal order and stop asserting a form of minarchism is "anarchy"...it clearly isn't.

A nation who's culture is non-aggression? I'm ok with that.

Again, look up nationalism..it's an imcompatible ideology with the philosophy of anarchism. It's no more compatible with anarchism than statism. Nationalism always preceeds or emerges in conjunction with statism. A FREE TERRITORY with no nationalist identity is okay...not a "nation" with a coercive culture. Not everyone wants non-aggression, and shouldn't be coerced into it. If they want to murder each other, all willing participants only, then it's legitimate in panarchism (anarchist legal order). You're trying to enforce uniformity, ie Utopia. Anarchism is the only known non-utopian philosophy...so this isn't compatible (although I agree on the NAP; I also reject aggression personally). But in order to be anarchy, you have to allow wlilling participants to harm each other of their own free will via aggression. You can't get two people to agree on everything, let alone a "nation" of millions. It's a utopian nonsense dream. I'ts minarchism. It will require aggression to enforce this "nation" of non-aggression, hence making it a state (and self contradictory).

This is the same problem left anarchist collectivists suffer from; calling it "anarchy" while asserting "property is theft". No uniform organizational method (like deomcracy or non-democracy for examples) or uniform economic system can exist in a non-aggressive society...hence, panarchist synthesis. With panarchism (law) and panarchist synthesis (organization methods and economic schools) you achieve anarchism...a non-aggressive world where everyone can have any system they like as long as all others are voluntarily participating. It has NOTHING to do with geography or social norms, essentially.

Incorrect. What you just said will lead to tyranny, because it creates an unbreakable reliance on the commune, and it breaks the principle that only people can own land.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're asserting is minarchism, not anarchism. You want to be able to reneg on agreements...that's not allowed. You can't gift me a car contractually and then reneg on the deal later. Land property is no different. Your exceptions are decidely coercive. Imagine being a member of that collective and planting crops on that land, then you deciding to throw up a fence and saying "get off my land". It's tyranny...on your part. End of story.

Your whole scenrio you decsctibe after that makes false assumptions. If you join an anti-market commune you voluntarily give up property rights...they are afterall anti-property. You are trying to enforce property rights on people who don't believe in them. That's a state. If you want to change your mind, and start to believe in property again, that's fine...but you can't reneg on your contractual legal agreement with them after-the-fact. You go on to talk about stock holders...there is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY to the contract you signed. Don't sign it if you want to retain property rights...because otherwise you have to AGGRESS against those anti-property anarchists and their contract in order to break the deal. If you want to get out of the contract you'd better have a clause in that contract allowing it, or you damn well better move and abandon your possession (not property) land.

Otherwise, you inevitably have a state.

You're not describing anarchy...you're describing a decentralized and local state...and as such, you are enforcing YOUR idea of liberty on others. You can't do that and be an anarchist. Please, watch the videos and read about panarchist synthesis and panarchism generally.

The second contract, while voluntary, I don't think anyone would agree to it.

You might not aggre to it, I might not agree to it...but someone would. Any variation in contract will be agreed to by someone. You can't make such assumptions...or you destroy liberty and non-uniformity (anarchism). You have to assume that ANY voluntary contract is legitimate...whether you or I find them stupid or masochistic, or not. Anarchism outlaws involuntary sadism, not voluntary masochism.

No sir, that is not what I said. Only people can own property. You can't sell it to a community.

Who made this statist rule? Then churches can't exist, either can companies, or unions, or rotary clubs. Obviously this is a minarchist state you're describing, not anarchy. Obviously this is not the case in anarchy. You CAN sell or give away (voluntary transfer) your property to anyone or any entity you like...that's liberty, that's anarchism, that's property rights. What you're describing is YOUR version of rules...not voluntary society (anarchy).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make such arbitrary rules....at least not while being an anarchist in favor of anarchy.

Reconsider what you're saying...you're describing minarchy. Some state would be needed to enforce this rule you describe among people who do not VOLUNTARILY subject themselves to this rule. That's obviously anti-anarchy.

Which implies that everyone in that commune owns property

Then it isn't a commune, logically. Communists don't believe in property rights, they believe in possesssion. Have you not read any anarcho communists? You're just making up rules and calling it "anarchy". It's small government statism...sorry, but it is. Anarchy is a society organized VOLUNTARILY...how are you going to organize a commune voluntarily when they aren't free as communists to exercise their belief that "property is theft" among only willing participants with like minds?

Answer: you can't.

You're describing a market minarchy...it's as clear as day. You're creating a state...not me.

I'll in detail define a state (minarchist or otherwise) according to Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner's criteria:

The State draws it's authority from the following areas:

1. The monopoly on social contracts (within a certain area only one standard of law is accepted)
2. The monopoly on violence (the liscence for force to enforce the statist standard of law within the area)
3. The monopoly on capital (having only one accepted currency with no competition allowed)
4. The monopoly on collective defense (using the statist law to compel or conscript someone to fight in a war(s))
5. The monopoly on intelligence (secrecy for the sake of the State, not for the sake of defense directly)

State - a form of collective government where one or more of the above State authorities are in place; compulsory government

Statism - the belief collective government in one or more of the above State authorities is a preferable manner to organize society

You are clearly defining a state. I'm clearly not. I'm sorry, those are just the objective facts.

The good news? You can start advocating anarchism at any time. You can watch those videos, read about panarchism, panarchist synthesis, and Tucker's and Spooner's writings (among dozens of other anarchists) who inspired market anarchism among the likes of Rothbard and the anarcho capitalists (like Roderick Long who is in the hour and half video I linked you too; the first video).

Anarchy is clearly a society organized purely voluntarily...which means a lack of uniformity, and a society that allows any associations among voluntary participants including organizational methods (or lack thereof; like democracy or anti-democractic relationships) and any economic systems (like communism, socialism, free market, Parecon, etc.) SIMULTANEOUSLY.

 

[TheTexan]

No, it won't. You can sign a legal contract in anarchism that allows you to murder other people who voluntarily also sign that contract. You can't stop such idiots without AGGRESSION. There is NO uniform standard of law, because anarchism is non-utopian.

To be honest I stopped reading your response after the fourth sentence. It's clear you didn't even read what I said

I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary

In your second sentence, no natural right is in conflict, so there is no need for common law. In the fourth sentence, I thought I made it pretty clear, "and it absolutely will vary." I'm not sure how anyone could possibly interpret that as "uniform."

Sorry, but based on that I've deemed the rest of your post a waste of my time. There's no way I'm reading that.

 

[ProIndividual]

To be honest I stopped reading your response after the fourth sentence. It's clear you didn't even read what I said



In your second sentence, no natural right is in conflict, so there is no need for common law. In the fourth sentence, I thought I made it pretty clear, "and it absolutely will vary." I'm not sure how anyone could possibly interpret that as "uniform."

Sorry, but based on that I've deemed the rest of your post a waste of my time. There's no way I'm reading that.

I cearly did read what you said.

You say it will vary by geography...that's not anarchism, not minarchism. I'm sorry, that's clearly what it is. You said it would vary by locations..that's minarchism.

You can deem my post a waste of time...but you clearly misunderstand anarchism and anarchist legal order. You'd do well not to dismiss me and to educate yourself on what you CLAIM to represent. Why? Because your misrepresenting to others inevitably.

No matter how locally you set up legal systems based on geography you are setting up a state.

In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land

That quote is clearly a misunderstanding of anarchist legal order.

See that root? Yeah that's your geographic monoply on law.

there is no contract, explicit or implicit

You said it's not contractual, explicit or implicit...but in fact it's an actual contract you sign, like buying cable TV service.

Now, when you want to learn how anarchist legal order works, go watch the videos at the link I left you (since your too intellectually lazy to read what I've taken the time to write for you), or go to Mises and watch something by David Friedman on the issue.

 

[TheTexan]

more irrelevant gibberish

Let me try this again. I'll try to make it simple for you to understand.

Let's pretend there's 3 similar men. These men live on their land by themself. They don't get out much, so they don't have any political affiliations, and rarely encounter other people. They belong to no organizations, State or otherwise, but simply want to live on their land alone in peace.

They hunt for food. They generally hunt in a 3 mile radius around their homes. And in fact they never leave this 3 mile radius, ever.

However, these 3 men all live within 6 miles of each other. So their hunting grounds overlap. However, they have never met.

One day, these 3 hunters decide to go hunting, and where their hunting grounds overlap, they all 3 meet. They kind of shrug at first.

Hunter 1 says angrily "Get off my land, this is my land!!"

Hunter 2 says angrily "Hell no, you get off my land, I've been hunting here for years!!"

Hunter 3 says "I have plenty of other places to hunt, I'm outta here see ya".

But, while Hunter 3 was leaving, the two other hunters gets into a physical confrontation. Hunter 3 watches Hunter 1 get up into Hunter 2's Face. Hunter 2 shoves Hunter 1. Hunter 1 punches Hunter 2. Hunter 2 forces hunter 1 onto the ground. Hunter 1 shoots Hunter 2, and kills him.

Hunter 3 has at least two options here:

1) Decide Hunter 1 was justified in his action and leave him be
2) Decide Hunter 1 murdered the other, point his own rifle at Hunter 1, and pull the trigger, right then and there.

Both decisions are entirely correct. He can choose option 1, or option 2. In either case, he just set a common law precedent. Other people who hear this story will know what to expect if they encounter Hunter 3 in a similar situation.

So, either you completely misunderstood what I said or didn't read it, or you believe that believing that Hunter 3 has a choice to make makes me a statist. Which is simply absurd.

Hopefully you'll actually read and comprehend what I said this time... I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you. Common law != Statism.

Fucking anarchists man... they think anything and everything is fucking Statist.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Unmixed land cannot be property. You cannot claim property right to your "3 mile radius" simply becasue you happen to hunt there.

See Rothbard on Crusoe Philosophy:

Let us now return to our analysis of Crusoe’s purposeful transformation of nature-given data though the understanding of natural laws. Crusoe finds virgin, unused land on the island; land, in short, unused and uncontrolled by anyone, and hence unowned. By finding land resources, by learning how to use them, and, in particular, by actually transforming them into a more useful shape, Crusoe has, in the memorable phrase of John Locke, “mixed his labor with the soil.” In doing so, in stamping the imprint of his personality and his energy on the land, he has naturally converted the land and its fruits into his property. Hence, the isolated man owns what he uses and transforms; therefore, in his case there is no problem of what should be A’s property as against B’s. Any man’s property is ipso facto what he produces, i.e., what he transforms into use by his own effort. His property in land and capital goods continues down the various stages of production, until Crusoe comes to own the consumer goods which he has produced, until they finally disappear through his consumption of them.

As long as an individual remains isolated, then, there is no problem whatever about how far his property—his ownership—extends; as a rational being with free will, it extends over his own body, and it extends further over the material goods which he transforms with his labor. Suppose that Crusoe had landed not on a small island, but on a new and virgin continent, and that, standing on the shore, he had claimed “ownership” of the entire new continent by virtue of his prior discovery. This assertion would be sheer empty vainglory, so long as no one else came upon the continent. For the natural fact is that his true property—his actual control over material goods—would extend only so far as his actual labor brought them into production. His true ownership could not extend beyond the power of his own reach.[9] Similarly, it would be empty and meaningless for Crusoe to trumpet that he does not “really” own some or all of what he has produced (perhaps this Crusoe happens to be a romantic opponent of the property concept), for in fact the use and therefore the ownership has already been his. Crusoe, in natural fact, owns his own self and the extension of his self into the material world, neither more nor less.

It is vital to understand the nature of justly acquired property, for without this understanding all else beyond simply devolves into a practicable form of property based nihilism.

 

[TheTexan]

People are going to have fights over land, justly or unjustly, so its not exactly relevant to the point at hand

 

[RiseAgainst]

People are going to have fights over land, justly or unjustly, so its not exactly relevant to the point at hand

It's entirely relevant to the point at hand. Your scenario was a dispute between two unjust "property" owners. Both initiated aggression against the other, one succeeded in causing further damage. This does not negate the initiation of aggression by the dead man, nor does it make the property in question and more "just" to the man still standing, save under a nihilist understanding.

There are two underlying principles which absolutely must be understood, else all else after will fail. That is first, each persons natural right to self ownership. Secondly, each persons right to extend their self ownership into the material world through the mixing of labor with nature, creating just property. If you do not understand just property, nothing else beyond will ever matter.

This is much akin to your desire to extend the rights afforded of just property, to the "owners" of the most unjust property currently known, state property. Your failure to understand the nature of just property allows you to extrapolate property rights to these "owners" of state roads that simply do not exist, save in nihilism.

 

[TheTexan]

It's entirely relevant to the point at hand. Your scenario was a dispute between two unjust "property" owners. Both initiated aggression against the other, one succeeded in causing further damage.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about the decisions of the third man, not whether any of those decisions were just or unjust.

There are two underlying principles which absolutely must be understood, else all else after will fail. That is first, each persons natural right to self ownership. Secondly, each persons right to extend their self ownership into the material world through the mixing of labor with nature, creating just property. If you do not understand just property, nothing else beyond will ever matter.

This is not about property. At all. It's about conflict resolution, and acknowledging that resolutions create common law. This is not about how conflicts should be resolved. I'm sure you have your opinions, but it's simply not relevant.

This is much akin to your desire to extend the rights afforded of just property, to the "owners" of the most unjust property currently known, state property.

I never said their ownership was just. The closest thing I ever said was that their ownership stands (rightly or wrongly) until the rightful owner claims it back. And you know what? In the original discussion which caused this disagreement you have with this, I was (intending to, anyway) talk about a theoretical society where the property was justly held. I guess that got lost somewhere along the way.

There are people who rightfully own this 'public' property. Us. The community who uses it every day. However, we don't make the decisions, the state does. On the other side, the people who do "rightfully" own the property, ie, Us, would likely make the same decision. We live amongst statists, don't you know.

So I'm sure this explanation isn't enough to put this issue to rest for you. You'll probably find something about it you don't like /shrug

Your failure to understand the nature of just property allows you to extrapolate property rights to these "owners" of state roads that simply do not exist, save in nihilism.

I never even said or even implied that they were just in their ownership of the property. The hunters did.

Besides, again, this isn't about property. People will have disputes. The point I was making is that the fact that people resolve them at all establishes common law. The resolution, whether it is 'just' or 'unjust' has zero relevance.

I'm not sure if you missed the point, or if you just like derailing points about natural rights, because I can say objectively speaking, your points here (valid or not) about the justification of property, has absolutely zero relevance.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Doesn't matter. We're talking about the decisions of the third man, not whether either of the first or second were just or unjust.

Again, it completely matters. You're trying to spin something out of it that doesn't exist (seems to be a theme). The 3rd man has no more a stake in the matter than I do outside of a bar at 3AM when two guys decide to box each other. They have aggressed against each other of their own accord and I have no business in the matter. I cannot interfere in the fight without continuing the aggression of one man against another.

This is not about property. At all. It's about conflict resolution, and acknowledging that resolutions create common law. This is not about how conflicts should be resolved. I'm sure you have your opinions, but it's simply not relevant.

It's always about property, it is the basis for any just claim. Saying it isn't about property is like saying math isn't about numbers. You can say it, but it's not right.

I never said their ownership was just. The closest thing I ever said was that their ownership stands (rightly or wrongly) until the rightful owner claims it back. And you know what? In the original discussion which caused this disagreement you have with this, I was (intending to, anyway) talk about a theoretical society where the property was justly held. I guess that got lost somewhere along the way.

If their ownership was not just, there is nothing to talk about. You have no claims to property if it is not just.

There are people who rightfully own this 'public' property. Us. The community who uses it every day. However, we don't make the decisions, the state does. On the other side, the people who do "rightfully" own the property, ie, Us, would likely make the same decision. We live amongst statists, don't you know.

We do not anymore rightly own 'public' property than a stockholder of Goldman Sachs 'rightly' owns the stolen money it was given by the government. You continue to try to manufacture property ownership where it does not exist. This is not the basis for a sound argument.

So I'm sure this explanation isn't enough to put this issue to rest for you. You'll probably find something about it you don't like /shrug

It's not whether I 'like' something or not, it's whether it's right or not. Your statement is akin to saying "I just spent 5 paragraphs explaining why 2+2=5, but I'm sure you'll find something about it you don't like".

I never even said or even implied that they were just in their ownership of the property. The hunters did.

Really? You create your own scenario and then try to lay the basis of your argument on the backs of the fictional characters you created?

Besides, again, this isn't about property. People will have disputes. The point I was making is that the fact that people resolve them at all establishes common law. The resolution, whether it is 'just' or 'unjust' has zero relevance.

The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing. You are more aptly advocating nihilism than any semblence of property based anarchy. The resolution only finds it's basis in property, be it self-ownership or it's mixed extension to tangible property. In order for it to be just, it must find it's roots in just property.

I'm not sure if you missed the point, or if you just like derailing points about natural rights, because I can say objectively speaking, your points here (valid or not) about the justification of property, has absolutely zero relevance.

I'm not sure if you don't understand property based natural rights (self ownership) and market based anarchy, or if you just like to create fictional strawmen to hear the sound of your own voice.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I wasn't talking about a social contract. I was talking about a shared philosophy. For a nation to work, anarchist or not, they must share a philosophy.

In the scope of anarchism, there are many guiding principles, but at the heart of it is NAP. At the heart of NAP, is the idea that all people are sovereign to themselves.

In an anarchy, common law will differ from land to land, as will the form of governance, masochism, self government, how they handle property rights, whether they have property rights at all for that matter, how they police themselves, or whether they police themselves at all, etc, but among all of this is one unifying principle:

Every arrangement must have a means of dissolution.

First, and foremost, this means every individual has a natural right of secession. It also means that if you enter into a contract with someone, there should be a means, either explicit or implicit, to get out of the contract.

So, for example, if you own a plot of land that is situated next to a communist enclave, and you decide to join them. When you join them, your land then belongs to their community, because it is a communist community after all.

What happens if you don't like it? If they are assholes about it, you lose your land, because they say it belongs to them. You're forced to either stay there, or leave and be homeless. For a lot of people this would not be a reasonable choice.

People will make dumb decisions. They will trust themselves to varying levels and types of "voluntary" government. But there are varying levels of "voluntary". Once your livelihood depends on the contract you've agreed upon, it is really no longer voluntary. Once it's no longer voluntary, they own you, they take advantage of you, and it becomes less and less voluntary. This is how the State is created.

So if you enter into the agreement to join your land with theirs, the agreement should have, either implicitly or explicitly, a way for you to leave the arrangement in a fair manner. Unless otherwise agreed upon when you joined their community, you should have a reasonable expectation to get your land back when you leave. If they've developed the land for you, that complicates things, but the basic principle is that you should be able to get out of the contract in a manner fair to both parties.

Again, just a guideline, or a shared philosophy. This principle is central to both freedom and the prevention of the State.

I like the cut of your jib. +rep Mises would agree with you (as would any other classical liberal worth their salt).

 

[TheTexan]

Again, it completely matters.

Keep saying that and it makes it true.

You're trying to spin something out of it that doesn't exist (seems to be a theme). The 3rd man has no more a stake in the matter than I do outside of a bar at 3AM when two guys decide to box each other. They have aggressed against each other of their own accord and I have no business in the matter. I cannot interfere in the fight without continuing the aggression of one man against another.

It's not relevant to the point I was making whether even the third man's actions were just. In fact, the central theme of my scenario is that people will do unjust things.

It's always about property, it is the basis for any just claim. Saying it isn't about property is like saying math isn't about numbers. You can say it, but it's not right.

Rewrite the scenario however you like. Let's say they each planted bear traps in the overlapped area, and they didn't notice each other's bear traps. The scenario is the same, but the land is "mixed". Happy yet? Holy shit.

If their ownership was not just, there is nothing to talk about. You have no claims to property if it is not just.

We do not anymore rightly own 'public' property than a stockholder of Goldman Sachs 'rightly' owns the stolen money it was given by the government. You continue to try to manufacture property ownership where it does not exist. This is not the basis for a sound argument.

Then you're saying a Sovereign Government owns it. That's fine. Whatever. You have this desire to create conflict where there actually isn't any. You will most certainly say you do disagree, but you don't. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

After like 10 PM's you finally said your only disagreement was that the land was stolen, and that I think you think I think they have rights because its stolen. I agreed that it was stolen. I'm telling you again, now, the land was stolen, and the Sovereign Gov does not have rights to it. Whether you want to say the Sovereign Government has stolen ownership, or the people who rightfully belong currently own it but simply have lost control of it, at that point it's a circular endless pointless loop.

Really? You create your own scenario and then try to lay the basis of your argument on the backs of the fictional characters you created?

The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing.

The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing, but the point that people do resolve them does establish something. People in that community will know how that problem was resolved, justly or unjustly, and if they cause that same problem, they can expect the same just, or unjust, resolution. i.e., common law.

If I punch you in the face and go to jail, it doesn't mean that punching you in the face was just, and it doesn't mean that putting me in jail is just.

It means only that I punched you in the face, and I went to jail. It also means that if people around me saw me punch someone, and saw me to go jail, they will expect that if they punch someone, they will probably go to jail.

Just/unjust, has nothing to do with this concept.

 

[Black Flag]

If I punch you in the face and go to jail, it doesn't mean that punching you in the face was just, and it doesn't mean that putting me in jail is just.

It means only that I punched you in the face, and I went to jail. It also means that if people around me saw me punch someone, and saw me to go jail, they will expect that if they punch someone, they will probably go to jail.

Just/unjust, has nothing to do with this concept.

Actually, it does.

People do not put other people "in jail" on a whim.
There must be a cause.
Their action must be justified - (note the root word "just") and you must justify your actions to them so not to go to jail.

Just/unjust has everything to do with common law.

 

[TheTexan]

Actually, it does.

People do not put other people "in jail" on a whim.
There must be a cause.
Their action must be justified - (note the root word "just") and you must justify your actions to them so not to go to jail.

Just/unjust has everything to do with common law.

My argument was that common law != statism. If you want to start saying that unjust common law does equal statism, then because any unjust common law is simply a crime against natural rights, then you're also saying crime itself is equivalent to statism.

Which then, means that statism is unavoidable, because crime itself is unavoidable.

Common law should be based on what's justified, but it won't always be so. Also, people will have different sets of what they believe are their natural rights. What's a natural right to you and I may not be a natural right to someone else.

For you to dictate what is just, and what is unjust, actually, is more likely to lead to statism, than the idea that common law isn't always just.

IMHO, as long as you can opt out of a society with an unjust common law via secession, it's very, very hard to call that statism.

In fact, the original argument, where common law was declared to be statist, there was no just/unjust at all because the common law was entirely unspecified, so as far as the original argument is concerned, nevermind this side argument, just/unjust was not part of the equation. Though even in this side argument, you are also wrong.

 

[Cabal]

The point that people resolve them in a certain way establishes nothing, but the point that people do resolve them does establish something. People in that community will know how that problem was resolved, justly or unjustly, and if they cause that same problem, they can expect the same just, or unjust, resolution. i.e., common law.

This assumes too much, and isn't necessarily true.

Just because a situation was resolved one way at one point in time doesn't mean it'll be resolved in the same way thereafter. It's quite possible that people will look back at the previous resolution, determine that it wasn't a good resolution, and seek a different resolution if the situation were to arise again. Or, rather than establishing some common law, all that has taken place is that Hunter 3 (or whoever was involved in the previous resolution) has a history of this action or that action; this doesn't necessarily mean that others will act accordingly.

For something to be established it must be proven or widely accepted--neither of which results from merely one particular instance. Scientific theories must necessarily be reproduced and retested in order to pass the tests of the scientific method. Wide acceptance tends to take place over time rather than instantaneously.

Now, could some sort of common law emerge from the resolution of one particular scenario? Possibly, but this isn't necessarily the case as you are making it out to be.

 

[Black Flag]

My argument was that common law != statism.

Ok, I agree.

Common law is Not State Law.

If you want to start saying that unjust common law does equal statism, then because any unjust common law is simply a crime against natural rights, then you're also saying crime itself is equivalent to statism.

I agree - State law is a crime against humanity.

Which then, means that statism is unavoidable, because crime itself is unavoidable.

Perhaps, like there will always be bad people and human suffering.

Common law should be based on what's justified, but it won't always be so.

Yes, that is possible. A mass of people with a shared understanding does not make their understanding right or the truth.

Also, people will have different sets of what they believe are their natural rights. What's a natural right to you and I may not be a natural right to someone else.

No.
Natural law is the same for everyone and is the same for everyone - there is no separate "law of gravity" for you vs. me.

If you believe you see a difference in "natural" law, it means you have misinterpreted an consequence of Natural law to be the law itself.

The rock hitting the ground is not "gravity" - why? ... because something had to act upon the rock for it to fall, then the law of gravity exercised upon it.

For you to dictate what is just, and what is unjust, actually, is more likely to lead to statism, than the idea that common law isn't always just.

Not likely - as one can use reason to determine such "justice" for all me from such natural law, since reason can act immutably upon natural law, thus, the answer the comes must be the same for you as for me.

 

[TheTexan]

No.
Natural law is the same for everyone and is the same for everyone - there is no separate "law of gravity" for you vs. me.

If you believe you see a difference in "natural" law, it means you have misinterpreted an consequence of Natural law to be the law itself.

The rock hitting the ground is not "gravity" - why? ... because something had to act upon the rock for it to fall, then the law of gravity exercised upon it.


Not likely - as one can use reason to determine such "justice" for all me from such natural law, since reason can act immutably upon natural law, thus, the answer the comes must be the same for you as for me.

I believe (very strongly) in the natural right to private property. Communists obviously don't. Are you saying their set of natural rights are any less valid than mine?

As long as I can opt out of participating with their society, our differences need not cause any harm.

 

[TheTexan]

This assumes too much, and isn't necessarily true.

Just because a situation was resolved one way at one point in time doesn't mean it'll be resolved in the same way thereafter. It's quite possible that people will look back at the previous resolution, determine that it wasn't a good resolution, and seek a different resolution if the situation were to arise again. Or, rather than establishing some common law, all that has taken place is that Hunter 3 (or whoever was involved in the previous resolution) has a history of this action or that action; this doesn't necessarily mean that others will act accordingly.

Correct. Just because an action had a certain consequence, doesn't dictate that the same action will have the same consequence. There is a reasonable expectation of such, but no, it's not necessary, nor is this a relevant part of the question of whether or not common law is statist.

 

[Revolution9]

Thinking is hard, obeying is easy.

I see it is too hard for you to engage in and generate output.

rev9