Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 [27]   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism  (Read 92136 times)

Keti

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
  • God Bless Darwin
    • Keti's Forum
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #390 on: July 17, 2006, 02:39:42 pm »

Don't ask questions too fast. He'll skip the questions you want answered, answer the ones he thinks he can answer incoherently, and answer the ones he saw a response to on mutualism.org by posting a link to the article.

Go slowly with him and remember that he likes to dodge questions. When he dodges, demand an answer.

There's another thread like this one and I'm 99% sure that RalphBorsodi here goes by Ben Tucker there, over on the Free Talk Live forums. You can just watch him fail to answer questions over and over.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7574.0
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #391 on: July 17, 2006, 02:40:23 pm »

Quote
You seem to believe a society where absolute ownership of space is not protected.

no...rather absolute ownership of space can only come at the expense of absolute ownership of labor as an extension of self.

so exclusive use is conditional upon not economically harming anyone else

Quote
Do you believe a government should assign space on an as-needed basis?

no.

Quote
Are you a fan of the Kelo decision?

no...it was unnecessary.

the whole decision hinges on highest and best use of a spatial location.

Quote
If I build a factory or a store or a hair salon on a spot and make money for myself while providing something to others via strictly voluntary and consensual exchange, how is it determined when that "space" can no longer be used for that purpose?

can the location's current use support the paying for the economic harm it is subjecting others to which violates their absolute right to their labor?

Quote
If I build my home in a space, how do we decide how big it can be?

I don't - that is subjective to the owner's ability to afford to pay for it.

Quote
If someone, something, the government, a random mob of dissenters, whatever, can kick me out of that space, can I move the house I built somewhere else or is that not under my absolute ownership either?

no need to kick anyone out - just lien the property and collect at ttile transfer.

you can take your house with you as it is absolute property...I would suggest building it on wheels.

Quote
how would the space ownership rights as you describe them be enforced?

the same way a landowner forces a tenant to pay the economic rent portion of their lease payment...

Quote
Can you give a practical example of how a small town would function under your vision?

shift property tax off of capital (buildings) and onto land values...pay your neighbors directly as they pay you instead of the town.
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #392 on: July 17, 2006, 03:57:44 pm »

Quote
You seem to believe a society where absolute ownership of space is not protected.

no...rather absolute ownership of space can only come at the expense of absolute ownership of labor as an extension of self.

You believe society should establish and protect a right-- the absolute ownership of labor as an extension of self, and you believe this right cannot coexist with absolute ownership of space. Therefore, you believe in a society where absolute ownership of space is not protected.

That's my train of thought. I believe it's a logical conclusion based on the premises you've set forth. So I'm back to my practicality question. How does society control the use of space in practical terms?

Quote
Quote
If I build a factory or a store or a hair salon on a spot and make money for myself while providing something to others via strictly voluntary and consensual exchange, how is it determined when that "space" can no longer be used for that purpose?

can the location's current use support the paying for the economic harm it is subjecting others to which violates their absolute right to their labor?

That's my question to you. In this version of society, who makes that decision? Government? So government regulates the use of all land and we all pay a fee to the government to use it? And then what does the government do with that money? Does it distribute it to everyone? Is it a state government that distributes the payments to all residents of Florida? Is it the Federal government that distributes it to all residents of the U.S.? I assume they get to keep some portion to pay for the management of the land. Is there an elected group of people, a commision appointed by elected officials perhaps, or is it something else, to decide how much the land is worth, i.e. the amount of economic harm it's causing by not being available to others?

I'm basing this on your suggestion:
Quote
shift property tax off of capital (buildings) and onto land values...pay your neighbors directly as they pay you instead of the town.

Am I getting warmer or colder? I suspect once I actually understand how this plan would work in reality, I could better decide on the value I would place on such a system. So far it's a really unsettling thought. I imagine I've spent a lot of money on my home and I could lose it at any moment based on some commission's decision. That is, if I don't build or buy one with wheels.

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #393 on: July 17, 2006, 07:20:07 pm »

Quote
You believe society should establish and protect a right-- the absolute ownership of labor as an extension of self

yes, the right of self-ownership is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - isn't it?

Quote
and you believe this right cannot coexist with absolute ownership of space

yes, because one can not exist without occupying space and if all spaces are legally occupied you must pay someone to legally stand somewhere to excercise your right of self-ownership.

it is logically inconsistent unless of course you don't think we are born with rights that don't have to be purchased or gifted - do you?

Quote
Therefore, you believe in a society where absolute ownership of space is not protected.

exclusive use is protected so long as you do not economically harm anyone else by that use...

Quote
How does society control the use of space in practical terms?

just share the economic rent that accrues to those that have exclusive use...

Quote
In this version of society, who makes that decision? Government?

no, the market - as two or more people naturally compete for access to scarce resources (exclusive use of locations)

Quote
So government regulates the use of all land and we all pay a fee to the government to use it? And then what does the government do with that money? Does it distribute it to everyone? Is it a state government that distributes the payments to all residents of Florida? Is it the Federal government that distributes it to all residents of the U.S.? I assume they get to keep some portion to pay for the management of the land. Is there an elected group of people, a commision appointed by elected officials perhaps, or is it something else, to decide how much the land is worth, i.e. the amount of economic harm it's causing by not being available to others?

so here in NH rather than being assessed for your property tax on capital and land value by your local town you would just be assessed on land value.
you pay your money to a third party and they cut a check (equal amount) to all owner occupied locations.

Quote
So far it's a really unsettling thought.

no different than how it is today...except you won't be taxed on anything you do with your hands.

Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #394 on: July 17, 2006, 11:06:08 pm »

yes, the right of self-ownership is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - isn't it?

Libertarians believe in the negative right to life; not a positive one as you have defined it. In other words, we believe it's your right to not have your life forcibly taken from you. You are still expected to either provide for yourself or depend on voluntary charity. Libertarians do not believe in forcing anyone to provide for you.

Quote
it is logically inconsistent unless of course you don't think we are born with rights that don't have to be purchased or gifted - do you?

In the Libertarian vision, we are born with negative rights-- the right to be defended from force. Positive rights as you describe them would have to be gifted, like parents caring for their children. The government should defend us from force, but they should never force others to care for us. Libertarians are for minimal government. I would expect the government to intervene to a point. For instance, when one is born a helpless baby that's completely dependant on someone for its care, the parents either have to take responsibility for its care or turn it over for adoption. If no one will adopt it, the government can help to inform people of a new orphan and connect them so they can help the child through some form of voluntary charity. We are not born owning property. In fact, we aren't even born with the full freedoms of adults. Society places practical limits on children's freedoms for their own protection until they're old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Quote
Quote
So far it's a really unsettling thought.
no different than how it is today...except you won't be taxed on anything you do with your hands.

That sounds great. If you're just talking about lowering my property taxes, I'm all for it. But you used the term "assessed on land value" which implies a tax rate defined by government and in the same message you talked about the market setting the rate. Those two statements don't jive. So you still haven't explained the practical application of your method.

Give me a real-world example of how I would legally obtain some land and how the free market would affect the "property tax" for that piece of land.

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #395 on: July 18, 2006, 05:24:01 am »

Quote
Libertarians believe in the negative right to life; not a positive one as you have defined it. In other words, we believe it's your right to not have your life forcibly taken from you. You are still expected to either provide for yourself or depend on voluntary charity. Libertarians do not believe in forcing anyone to provide for you.

I have not posited a positive right to life...

a positive right to life means that someone must give you something CREATED FROM THE LABOR OF SOMEONE ELSE.

what I am saying is that occupying 3D space IS life and 3D space is not produced via someone's labor

Quote
In the Libertarian vision, we are born with negative rights-- the right to be defended from force

a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion...in my case the collection of economic rent by the landowner backed by the state is being subject to coercion from the action of another (private enclosure of land)

Quote
Positive rights as you describe them would have to be gifted, like parents caring for their children. The government should defend us from force, but they should never force others to care for us.

again, positive rights require labor of another as in your example "care"...while parents provide shelter for their children this also includes gifting 3D space for them to occupy.

Quote
Society places practical limits on children's freedoms for their own protection until they're old enough to make decisions for themselves.

agreed...so when do they get to practice the "right of self-ownership" that doesn't require a purchase or gift?

Quote
I'm all for it. But you used the term "assessed on land value" which implies a tax rate defined by government and in the same message you talked about the market setting the rate. Those two statements don't jive.

you are obviously confused between market value and personal utility value...market value can be determined objectively as it is the aggregate of personal utility values which can only be determined subjectively.

Quote
Give me a real-world example of how I would legally obtain some land and how the free market would affect the "property tax" for that piece of land.

you would aquire an exclusive use to a specific location by agreeing to share the economic rent with your neighbors in exchange your neighbors will agree to honor your exclusive use backed by their delegated authority.

the economic rent for each location is determined by a market value assessment which is the aggregate of personal utility values.
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #396 on: July 18, 2006, 12:38:05 pm »

agreed...so when do they get to practice the "right of self-ownership" that doesn't require a purchase or gift?

Never. I've already answered that.

Your rights are attached to responsibilities like respecting the rights of others and earning your own way in the world. As a child, you can't be responsible for yourself which means your rights are limited. You're born dirt poor and your very life is dependant on someone being generous enough to voluntarily care for you until you're capable of caring for yourself. Assuming someone does that and you survive to maturity, you'll have the full rights AND the attached responsibilities of an adult. By default, your net worth is zero. You can either get started with resources gifted to you by parents or some other charitable entity or you can negotiate with someone for a job and start increasing your balance to become more self-sufficient.

A right is an abstract human social construct. In the most technical sense, you are not born with it. It's not an organ or a magical aura surrunding you. You can't prove it's existence by whipping it out and showing it to me. It exists only in the minds of social organisms. If you're alone in the jungle with a hungry tiger, your right to life will not protect you from it. Why? It doesn't understand the right, it doesn't respect the right, and there is no external enforcement of the right (because you're alone). The law of the jungle will therefore supercede it. So if you want the right as you define it to become a founding principle of our society, you'll have to convince a lot of people to both respect your definition of it and then enforce it. Alternatively, you could find a bunch of people who like the idea, get them to agree to those terms, and pool your money to buy a lot of land and live like that. Don't call me. I'm not interested.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #397 on: July 18, 2006, 01:24:51 pm »

Quote
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

just to be clear...the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the right of self-ownership - is what you are disagreeing with.

because nothing that you said refutes the fact that we are born with rights as a social construct to avoid human conflict.

so just to be clear one last time...

a right is not inherent to being born a human being that does not have to be purchased or gifted?

do we have to purchase or be gifted our right to life?
do we have to purchase or be gifted our right to liberty?
Logged

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #398 on: July 27, 2006, 11:57:58 pm »

Quote
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

just to be clear...the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the right of self-ownership - is what you are disagreeing with.

because nothing that you said refutes the fact that we are born with rights as a social construct to avoid human conflict.

so just to be clear one last time...

a right is not inherent to being born a human being that does not have to be purchased or gifted?

do we have to purchase or be gifted our right to life?
do we have to purchase or be gifted our right to liberty?

Only in a capitalist system can the abstraction of private ownership endure (let alone make sense). The  indigenous peoples of the North American continent had no conception land ownership, living for centuries without benefit of a bureaucratic centralized government (anarchy) and seemed to do all right. They didn't have "money" or "corporations" or the "elite" to tell them how to live. They all worked in cooperation. Their social contract was a bit more evolved than what passes for civilazation these days.


How does society control the use of space in practical terms?


Do you mean society or the elite? If you mean the elite then it's pretty self-evident.



Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman

kid mongo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Featuring the Post-Anarchist Scan
Re: Anarchists/Anarcho-capitalism
« Reply #399 on: July 28, 2006, 12:52:15 am »

dalebert

Libertarians believe in the negative right to life; not a positive one as you have defined it. In other words, we believe it's your right to not have your life forcibly taken from you.


Precious, false,  and effing obtuse. Rights, whether "negative" or "positive"  are abstractions. And really, libertarians couldn't give a flying rat's ass about the next guy (ask Keti). 

In the Libertarian vision, we are born with negative rights-- the right to be defended from force.

And in the libertarian world, who's going to do the defending? The police? The Courts? The Invisible Hand of the Market? What the hell do you mean?

Positive rights as you describe them would have to be gifted, like parents caring for their children. The government should defend us from force, but they should never force others to care for us.

I don't get it. In light of the above statement, ("the government should defend us from force, but they should never force others to care for us,") how could parents be forced to nuture an infant? Have you really thought this thru?

Libertarians are for minimal government. I would expect the government to intervene to a point. For instance, when one is born a helpless baby that's completely dependant on someone for its care, the parents either have to take responsibility for its care or turn it over for adoption.

Or the mother could assert her "right" to abort. That'd be okay, right?

If no one will adopt it, the government can help to inform people of a new orphan and connect them so they can help the child through some form of voluntary charity. We are not born owning property. In fact, we aren't even born with the full freedoms of adults. Society places practical limits on children's freedoms for their own protection until they're old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Wouldn't it be easier to abort the damned thing? Murder in self defense is no crime. But wait, you mentioned ... "responsibility"... another abstraction. Another "negative right" to place alongside Duty and Obligation?  ???

C'mon babe, use yer noodle. Rights aren't positive or negative. They aren't given or "gifted".  They're taken, one bloody death at a time. If you'd check your assumptions against the historical record, you might realize that all you're yearning for is freedom from somebody telling you what to do and how and when to do it. And that the only things that  exist are things that work and things that don't work. And Love. All the rest is just philosophy. Word.

Logged
" Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal. "
- Emma Goldman
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 [27]   Go Up