Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-Capitalism  (Read 13947 times)

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Anarcho-Capitalism
« on: December 22, 2003, 09:33:58 pm »

     I am interested in learing more about Anarcho-Capitalism, and I know we have a few here if the FSP. Does anyone have any links, books to suggest, comments, information, ect. about the subject?

     Teetering between minimal government and none at all... need more info...
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2003, 11:36:24 pm »

    I am interested in learing more about Anarcho-Capitalism, and I know we have a few here if the FSP. Does anyone have any links, books to suggest, comments, information, ect. about the subject?

     Teetering between minimal government and none at all... need more info...

See the thread "Anarchism or Minarchism". Also read David Friedman's seminal book, "The Machinery of Freedom".
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2003, 11:52:25 pm »

Read Hans Herman Hopps paper here

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

Recently at Leew Rockwell also

"Why government must be abolished"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds161.html
The bottom line for me is that, the purpose of government is to protect our life, liberty, and property.

However in order to do that Government must first steal through taxation.

How can we trust somebody to protect our property when it must first steal it to protect it.

Government then, is a contradiction. Frankly, I'm willing to live with that contradiction, I'm not quite an anarchist, but I definetly am sympathetic to it.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2003, 11:53:38 pm »

    I am interested in learing more about Anarcho-Capitalism, and I know we have a few here if the FSP. Does anyone have any links, books to suggest, comments, information, ect. about the subject?

     Teetering between minimal government and none at all... need more info...

See the thread "Anarchism or Minarchism". Also read David Friedman's seminal book, "The Machinery of Freedom".

I wonder who started that thread... ;)
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2003, 10:20:37 pm »

Quote
However in order to do that Government must first steal through taxation.

How can we trust somebody to protect our property when it must first steal it to protect it.

Government then, is a contradiction. Frankly, I'm willing to live with that contradiction, I'm not quite an anarchist, but I definetly am sympathetic to it.

What is the funding is not taken by force? Such as fees for contract enforcement or deed enforcement?
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2003, 02:58:45 am »

Can a contract survive the signer and bind their descendants?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Morpheus

  • Guest
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2003, 05:29:29 am »

No. That would be slavery.
Logged

S Michael Moore

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Watch your step, I'm prickly!
    • Fuki Blog
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2003, 10:46:04 am »

Can a contract survive the signer and bind their descendants?

RS

An example of this, as I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong), is a conservation easement.

Let's say that I own a few hundred acres up in the Lakes area.  I don't want to see it developed, so I enter into a contractual obligation with the Lakes Region Conservation Trust via a conservation easement.  It is my understanding from what I have read sofar, that this agreement exists in perpetuity and is binding on ANY future title holder of said property including those who may have inherited it.

I am still investigating NH law see exactly how these easements (which can be held by any private entity as opposed to the State itself, which is the case in some states) differ legally from deed restrictions.  Regardless of what the current law is, it is my belief that these easements should have to be renogiated by the holder with each new owner of the property.  And yes, I am sure that the argument will be made that if a purchaser knowingly buys land with such an easement, then he is making a defacto acceptance of such easement.
Logged
More and more, when faced with the world of men, the only reaction is one of individualism. Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for the common good ends in failure. -- Albert Camus

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2003, 04:05:09 pm »

No. That would be slavery.

Then how can a title to property survive?

Also, how can a political covenant survive?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2003, 11:34:30 pm »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2003, 02:22:49 am »

    I am interested in learing more about Anarcho-Capitalism, and I know we have a few here if the FSP. Does anyone have any links, books to suggest, comments, information, ect. about the subject?

     Teetering between minimal government and none at all... need more info...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has a great annotated bibliography on Anarcho-Capitalism on LewRockwell.com.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2003, 05:28:46 am »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.

If a title isn't a contract, then how can a deed have covenants that cannot be legally ignored?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2003, 01:36:09 pm »

    I am interested in learing more about Anarcho-Capitalism, and I know we have a few here if the FSP. Does anyone have any links, books to suggest, comments, information, ect. about the subject?

     Teetering between minimal government and none at all... need more info...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has a great annotated bibliography on Anarcho-Capitalism on LewRockwell.com.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html


     Thanks!

Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2003, 03:50:54 pm »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.

If a title isn't a contract, then how can a deed have covenants that cannot be legally ignored?

Because a condition of purchase is that the buyer agree to be bound by the covenants, and to require that any later purchaser bound by similar conditions of purchase.

Your purchase contract is a separate document from the title declaration. That you don't get posession of title unless you agree to abide by the title declaration covenants does not make the title declaration a contract. You are free to ignore a covenant by not buying the titled property.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2003, 04:39:53 pm »

"Libertarians frequently disagree (sometimes rather violently) over what constitutes objective law and justice - some believing in patents and copyrights, others not; some supporting libel and slander laws, others not; some opposing abortion, others not; some denouncing capital punishment, others not; and some defending animal rights, others not.  

So, the question is: objective law and justice ~as judged by whom~? No one "retaliates" thinking that he's not objectively justified in doing so. If he didn't think that the force he is using were justified retaliation, then he would view it as the ~initiation~ of force, not as retaliatory force!  

How then do you reconcile conflicting ~claims~ to what constitutes objective law and justice - to what constitutes justified retaliation? After all, one person's retaliation is often another person's aggression; one person's justice, another person's crime. For example, suppose that I, as a doctor, have just performed a
partial-birth abortion on your daughter, thereby terminating the life of a son that she would otherwise have given birth to. You, as the prospective grandfather, are incensed at my action, and arrive at my office to arrest me for the murder of your grandson.  I, on the other hand, see the arrest as a violation of my right to perform a legitimate medical procedure.  So I call the office security guard to protect me from someone whom I regard as an anti-abortionist thug.

Question:  Who has the objective right to "retaliate" here?  Well, if you're an anarchist, it depends on your view of partial-birth abortion, doesn't it?!

Anarchists may nevertheless reply that there is an ~objective~ right and wrong, even if people disagree about what it is.  ~Either~ partial-birth abortion is a right, in which case, the father is objectively wrong for trying to arrest me, ~or~ partial-birth abortion is the ~violation~ of a right, in which case, the father is
objectively right for trying to arrest me.  If the former, then the father has no objective right to retaliate; if the latter, then I have no objective right to retaliate.  

Very well. Then who has an objective right to retaliate?  Most anarcho-capitalists would probably claim that I do - that partial-birth abortion should be legal.  But there are a lot of people in our society who would disagree, claiming that the procedure is tantamount to infanticide.  Observe that a commitment to individual rights doesn't help us here, for this is a question concerning the
proper ~interpretation~ of the principle of individual rights.

The problem with the anarcho-capitalist position is quite simple: Since you and I disagree about which action is just, there is no practical way for us to ~implement~ the idea that it is only the party with objective justice on its side that has the right to retaliate. In order to implement such a principle, we would first have to agree on the justice or injustice of partial-birth abortion.  But if we were in agreement, then it is unlikely that the issue would have arisen to begin with.  Either I wouldn't have performed the abortion, or you wouldn't have been trying to arrest me.  

In order to be practiced - in order to be implemented - moral principles have to be accessible to human judgment; they have to be capable of being recognized.  Yes, there is an "objective" principle of justice here, but it is of no practical value in an anarchist society, if people cannot agree on what it is.  The idea that whoever has objective justice on his side has the right to enforce it means that whoever ~thinks~ that he has objective justice on his side ~must view himself~ as having the right to enforce it, which can easily lead to a state of violent conflict and eventually to civil war.

Furthermore, if there is no single, objectively identifiable body of law, people have no idea what is expected of them - what they can and cannot do without offending someone who has the power to enforce his own private version of justice against anyone who happens to violate it. Imagine living in such a society, never knowing whom you're going to offend next, and whose "retaliation" you're likely to incur for some unknown crime that you've just unknowingly committed.  The fear and insecurity would be devastating.  

The only way to employ retaliatory force without precipitating both violent conflict and extreme insecurity is to assign its use to a monopolistic agency, which has the ~exclusive~ right to decide what is objectively just - to determine what is and is not permitted - and to enforce its decision.  The alternative is the very "chaos and anarchy" which anarcho-capitalists typically dismiss as a caricature of their position.  In fact, it is not a caricature at all, but the actual result of attempting to put their ideas into practice.  

Anarchists will often reply that the market can provide the kind of dispassionate arbitration and adjudication that is required to eliminate the influence of whim on the prosecution of an alleged crime.  A government, they say, is not required.  But an exclusive arbiter is a de facto government, regardless of whether or not it is called that by its proponents, since it assumes the right to enforce its decision against any and all dissenters.  What you would have under anarcho-capitalism in that case is competing governments - agencies competing for a monopoly of law within a given geographical
area.

The market for justice must have some objective guidelines as to what constitutes proper adjudication, retaliation and punishment, and these guidelines must be enforced. Otherwise, a lynch mob would have as much right to decide my guilt or innocence as anyone else. Who determines these guidelines?  Whoever does is declaring himself a legal monopoly - i.e., a government."

     Who can refute this argument?
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 

anything