'Anarcho'-Capitalists: Why Property Rights Over Human Rights?

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Schneider

unread,
Jul 7, 2002, 1:55:39 AM7/7/02
to
In article <apMgPcC=RAmQBDaPwo...@4ax.com>, John T. Kennedy

> In equality is not a product of capitalism, inequality is a fact of
> life. You'd seek to change this, but you can't.


Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected
by the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common
lout who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
possessions; 5. the attitude of the fox, after being denied the grapes
(re "Aesop's Fables").

--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/links.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"Blood! Boobs! Swords! Snakes!"--fwfr.com four word film review of "Conan"

The Dunn Family

unread,
Jul 7, 2002, 3:43:30 AM7/7/02
to
You're dead right! Literally! If people realized your definitions
are entirely accurate, they might not have passively allowed socialists
to kill them as they rose to power.

Smiley

unread,
Jul 7, 2002, 6:35:31 PM7/7/02
to
Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> preventing the wise from speaking;

The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
into savagery. If leftists were truly about compassion and care and
providing for the starving and sick they would have no problem with church's
involvement. They claim this would be mixing church and state, starting
from the premise that it is the government's duty to care for the "needy".
Thus revealing their true agenda to take wealth out of the hands of
individuals and give it to those incapable of creating it, to level everyone
off to the bottom rung so that there are no threats.

xofpi

unread,
Jul 8, 2002, 11:53:47 AM7/8/02
to
In article <mike1SPAMKILL-0...@msp-65-25-244-249.mn.rr.com>, Mike
Schneider says...

>
>In article <apMgPcC=RAmQBDaPwo...@4ax.com>, John T. Kennedy
>
>> In equality is not a product of capitalism, inequality is a fact of
>> life. You'd seek to change this, but you can't.
>
>
>Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
>conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected
>by the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common
>lout who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
>possessions; 5. the attitude of the fox, after being denied the grapes
>(re "Aesop's Fables").

From a legitimate anarchist-libertarian Website, the actual anarchist
libertarian definition of "socialism":

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001631.html

"Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers
democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a
definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such
means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and
awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than
passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers
themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and
only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state,
be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of
"socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political
con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token
adjustments for bearability."


Note that "anarcho"-capitalists object to the worker's democratic
ownership/control of the means of production precisely because it is, (in theory
at least, since it has not been allowed to actually *be* in practice),
*democratic*. These so-called "anarchists" would rather invest all authority
over the means of production in a single manager/owner or oligarchy--i.e., not
change the structure of authority at all except to get rid of any vestige of
democratic counterweight to it. And then they'll lie about what they're opposed
to, pretending that *they* are the guardians of liberty!

The key to the difference between real libertarian-anarchism and
proprietarianism (the proper name for "anarcho-captialism") hinges on the
question of authority vs. freedom. Proprietarians deny it--or are in denial
about it--but their system is based on the same mystical sources for authority
as feudalism and royalism. The proprietarian wants to sacralize heredity as a
rational basis for ownership rights. They claim that property is a "natural
right," but in effect their system endorses the same discredited system of
aristocracy and hereditary divine right that the Enlightenment threw over and
the American founders--at least the leftists among them--thought they had
banished for good.

Socialism is egalitarian, but not in the way the phony proprietarians claim.
Socialism is against the exploitation of humans by other humans, and its cure
for this ill is to empower the powerless the only way societies can hope to
empower each other--economically and politically--which means democratizing the
economic and political systems. Oddly enough, some proprietarians I have argued
with in the last couple of weeks have complained bitterly about unions and
government "profitting at someone else's expense." Don't they see the irony of
this position?! Of course not, because they aren't truly interested in ridding
the world of a system that rewards profit at others' expense. Indeed they
fantasize about getting rewarded by the same system some day. But in order to
profit themselves from the system, it's not enough for them to preserve native
inequalities of talent, etc., (which no system can ever hope to get rid of), but
to maintain the institutionalized inequalities that real anarchists oppose.


xofpi

unread,
Jul 8, 2002, 12:07:00 PM7/8/02
to
In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...

>
>Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>> preventing the wise from speaking;
>
>The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
>unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
>level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
>savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
>intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
>turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
>potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
>You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
>put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
>into savagery.


Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
(though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.


>If leftists were truly about compassion and care and
>providing for the starving and sick they would have no problem with church's
>involvement.


An objectivist defending the church?!

They claim this would be mixing church and state, starting
>from the premise that it is the government's duty to care for the "needy".


Strawman alert: Show me one citation from a leftist who argues that there's no
role for the church in caring for the needy. The church-state controversy is not
over the church's involvement in care for the needy, it's in the state's funds
going to pay for evangelizing missions, which violates the establishment clause
of the First Amendment.

>Thus revealing their true agenda to take wealth out of the hands of
>individuals and give it to those incapable of creating it, to level everyone
>off to the bottom rung so that there are no threats.

What do you mean no threats? Aren't the wealthy the ones who are threatened?


xofpi

unread,
Jul 8, 2002, 2:01:43 PM7/8/02
to
In article <3D29B9D1...@xxxislandnet.com>, Marilyn Welch says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>Interesting. Thank you.
>
>We are in the midst of negotiating treaties with First Nation's people.
>They have not ceded title to their lands in the last 200 years. I wonder
>how the Anarchos would define THEIR property rights.
>
>MW


I read somewhere recently that proprietarians consider the taking of property
through war as legitimate if the other side can be said to have "inititiated
force." Thus, because the governments of England, Holland, Spain, etc., were
"legitimate" ca 1492 and because their wars against the peoples who were in the
Americas were allegedly waged to protect the safety of their citizens against
marauding redskins, the appropriation of lands in the Americas were "just," and
all exchanges over property since then have been "just." (Whereas taxation is
"unjust"--even though taxation merely pays for the system that legitimizes
private property in the first place.)


The Baron

unread,
Jul 9, 2002, 12:06:52 AM7/9/02
to
"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:fAiW8.27411$15....@www.newsranger.com...


It would be more accurate to say that each individual has the knowledge of
what his or her own
freedom means and only the individual should be able to decide what is best
for himself or herself. I don't want "the workers" or any group deciding
how I should best live my life.


> Advocates of the state,
> be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of
> "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political
> con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token
> adjustments for bearability."


It's not just that they have defined it that way--that is what it has in
practice been!


> Note that "anarcho"-capitalists object to the worker's democratic
> ownership/control of the means of production precisely because it is, (in
theory
> at least, since it has not been allowed to actually *be* in practice),
> *democratic*.


Not true. In an anarcho-capitalist system, workers or anyone else would be
able set up whatever organizations they want to control their means of
production--They just wouldn't be able to force everyone else to belong to
those organizations.


> These so-called "anarchists" would rather invest all authority
> over the means of production in a single manager/owner or oligarchy--i.e.,
not
> change the structure of authority at all except to get rid of any vestige
of
> democratic counterweight to it. And then they'll lie about what they're
opposed
> to, pretending that *they* are the guardians of liberty!


Well, I'd say they would be better guardians of liberty than socialists, who
tend to lie about or obscure their aim of *forcing* everyone to submit to
their system. Even the anarcho-socialists seem to avoid the issue.


...


John Graeme

unread,
Jul 9, 2002, 12:20:38 AM7/9/02
to
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<EMiW8.27413$15....@www.newsranger.com>...

> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
> >
> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
> >
> >The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
> >unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
> >level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
> >savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
> >intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
> >turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
> >potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
> >You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
> >put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
> >into savagery.
>
>
>
>
> Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
> Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
> talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
> (though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
> institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.


Ah, but does it make sense to change all inequalities if it results in
an overall loss in material terms and freedom? Is is better for
everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
have an income hundreds of times that of others?
Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
do what the majority decides?

xofpi

unread,
Jul 9, 2002, 11:05:01 AM7/9/02
to
In article <787f8b2d.02070...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
says...

>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<EMiW8.27413$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
>> >
>> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
>> >
>> >The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
>> >unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
>> >level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
>> >savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
>> >intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
>> >turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
>> >potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
>> >You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
>> >put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
>> >into savagery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
>> Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
>> talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
>> (though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
>> institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.
>
>
>Ah, but does it make sense to change all inequalities if it results in
>an overall loss in material terms and freedom?


Who said anything about changing *all* inequalities? Isn't it possible to
effect changes that will distribute resources more equitably, which will
increase liberty overall for most people, without causing the harms you imagine?
There are certain people who have access to more resources than they could
possibly know what to do with while many millions more can barely feed
themselves. Why not create the conditions for a world in which this imbalance of
needs is put in greater balance? How can this present kind of inequality be
morally justified?

Is is better for
>everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
>have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
>have an income hundreds of times that of others?

According to real anarchists, everyone in a society should be able to have their
basic needs met. No one should starve. No child should be deprived of health
care and decent education just because his parents are poor. Everyone should
have shelter. Equality means equal access to the resources that meet basic
needs. Everything beyond that is gravy--and is permitted. The only thing that is
not permitted is exploitation of other people for the purposes of personal
profit, which is the heart and soul of capitalism. This is why
"anarcho"-capitalists are oxymorons, so to speak.

>Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>main means by which people's lives are improved overall?


People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
resources more equally.

>Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>do what the majority decides?


You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
oppressive than the rule of the few?


John Graeme

unread,
Jul 9, 2002, 7:05:18 PM7/9/02
to
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<xYCW8.27563$15....@www.newsranger.com>...

> In article <787f8b2d.02070...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
> says...
> >
> >xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<EMiW8.27413$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
> >> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
> >> >
> >> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
> >> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> >> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> >> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
> >> >
<snip>

> Is is better for
> >everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
> >have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
> >have an income hundreds of times that of others?
>
>
>
> According to real anarchists, everyone in a society should be able to have their
> basic needs met. No one should starve. No child should be deprived of health
> care and decent education just because his parents are poor. Everyone should
> have shelter. Equality means equal access to the resources that meet basic
> needs. Everything beyond that is gravy--and is permitted. The only thing that is
> not permitted is exploitation of other people for the purposes of personal
> profit, which is the heart and soul of capitalism. This is why
> "anarcho"-capitalists are oxymorons, so to speak.


I don't see how the left-anarchists can co-opt the word that way--By
definition, an anarchist is someone who wants no government (and
that's from the anarchist theory FAQ). The anarcho-capitalists do not
say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.


> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>
>
> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
> resources more equally.


Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
than others.


> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
> >do what the majority decides?
>
>
> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
> oppressive than the rule of the few?


Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
agreements with others that they choose?

xofpi

unread,
Jul 9, 2002, 9:49:01 PM7/9/02
to
In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme says...


I'll bet that was Bryan Caplan's "anarchist" FAQ, right? Well real anarchists
object to Caplan's dictionary definition on the basis of the fact that
anarchism--real anarchism--has been opposed not just to *government* but to
*arbitrary authority* from its beginnings in the Romantic era after the French
Revolution. This makes it squarely anti-capitalist.

The anarcho-capitalists do not
>say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.

I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".


>> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>>
>>
>> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
>> resources more equally.
>
>
>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>than others.


Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?


>> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>> >do what the majority decides?
>>
>>
>> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
>> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>
>
>Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>agreements with others that they choose?

If you want capitalism, someone has to rule. You can have anarchy and you can
have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
self-contradiction.


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 1:37:53 AM7/10/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:hoMW8.27674$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Exploitation of other people for economic profit is not allowed? Who are you
to stop it? That sounds like arbitrary authority to me.

> The anarcho-capitalists do not
> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>
>
>
> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>
>
>
>
> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
> >>
> >>
> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
distribute
> >> resources more equally.
> >
> >
> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
> >than others.
>
>
> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?

It is.

> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
> >> >do what the majority decides?
> >>
> >>
> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any
more
> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?

It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?

> >
> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
> >agreements with others that they choose?
>
>
>
> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.

Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?

?You can have anarchy and you can


> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> self-contradiction.

No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?

xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 11:12:10 AM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2bc816$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...


And you're complaining about the possibility that teenagers might have fun at
your expense? But it's allright if a system requires people to work for another
person's profit just so they can eat and feed their families?


>> The anarcho-capitalists do not
>> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
>distribute
>> >> resources more equally.
>> >
>> >
>> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>> >than others.
>>
>>
>> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>
>It is.


All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting even one?

>> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>> >> >do what the majority decides?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any
>more
>> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>
>It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?


You are. See below.


>> >
>> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>> >agreements with others that they choose?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.


See above. My point exactly. Why is one person's rule more reliable than the
majority's rule?


>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?


First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been defined
since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there is no
property, which requires a controlling legal authority, but there is a
recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is *immoral*
rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any kind in
real anarchy).

I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a necessary
evil.


>?You can have anarchy and you can
>> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> self-contradiction.
>
> No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?


I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property, which
requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it. Anarchy is by
definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal authorities
of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
"anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they shoud
properly be called, are not anarchists.

Care to explain your point of view that it is not a self-contradiction?

Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 12:19:37 PM7/10/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:e9YW8.27755$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Sure, if they choose to do so. Why does your arbitrary decision over the
choices of others create anarchism?

You are a kook. You respond to your own sentence as if you made a point!

See this sentence below? That was my response to your sentence above.

>
> >Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
> >property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
having
> >a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>
> First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been
defined
> since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there
is no
> property, which requires a controlling legal authority

I've already explained this to you, it does not require a controlling legal
authority.

>, but there is a
> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
*immoral*
> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
kind in
> real anarchy).

And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
definitions.

> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
necessary
> evil.

Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?

> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> >> self-contradiction.
> >
> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
>
>
> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,

How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
you call it.

>which
> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.

Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it does
not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
second premise, take your choice.

> Anarchy is by
> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
authorities
> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
shoud
> properly be called, are not anarchists.

It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.

> Care to explain your point of view that it is not a self-contradiction?

I just did.


xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 1:20:13 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2c5e7e$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:e9YW8.27755$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2bc816$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:hoMW8.27674$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John
>Graeme


>


>> >> >I don't see how the left-anarchists can co-opt the word that way--By
>> >> >definition, an anarchist is someone who wants no government (and
>> >> >that's from the anarchist theory FAQ).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet that was Bryan Caplan's "anarchist" FAQ, right? Well real
>anarchi
>> >sts
>> >> object to Caplan's dictionary definition on the basis of the fact that
>> >> anarchism--real anarchism--has been opposed not just to *government*
>but
>> >to
>> >> *arbitrary authority* from its beginnings in the Romantic era after the
>> >French
>> >> Revolution. This makes it squarely anti-capitalist.
>> >
>> >Exploitation of other people for economic profit is not allowed? Who are
>you
>> >to stop it? That sounds like arbitrary authority to me.
>>
>>
>> And you're complaining about the possibility that teenagers might have fun
>at
>> your expense? But it's allright if a system requires people to work for
>another
>> person's profit just so they can eat and feed their families?
>
>Sure, if they choose to do so. Why does your arbitrary decision over the
>choices of others create anarchism?


If people choose to act out master-slave relationships becasue both parties come
to their roles by free choice and not out of economic compulsion, there's
absolutely no harm in it. But if one comes to a dominated position, not by free
choice but out of economic necessity, that results in harm. Right "libertarians"
call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system that
benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."

>> >> The anarcho-capitalists do not
>> >> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>> >> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>> >> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>> >> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is
>the
>> >> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
>> >distribute
>> >> >> resources more equally.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>> >> >than others.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>> >
>> >It is.
>>
>>
>> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting even
>one?


Well?

>> >> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has
>to
>> >> >> >do what the majority decides?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority
>any
>> >more
>> >> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>> >
>> >It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?
>>
>>
>> You are. See below.
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>> >> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>> >> >agreements with others that they choose?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>
>>
>> See above. My point exactly. Why is one person's rule more reliable than
>the
>> majority's rule?
>
>You are a kook. You respond to your own sentence as if you made a point!


Guilty as charged.

>
>See this sentence below? That was my response to your sentence above.
>
>>
>> >Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>> >property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
>having
>> >a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>
>>
>> First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been
>defined
>> since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there
>is no
>> property, which requires a controlling legal authority
>
>I've already explained this to you, it does not require a controlling legal
>authority.

You have not explained this to me. Where did you "explain" this?


>>, but there is a
>> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
>*immoral*
>> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
>kind in
>> real anarchy).
>
>And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
>definitions.

The difference between possession and private property, in real anarchism, is
the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what a person
uses, a person possesses. This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them. Thus,
in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.


>
>> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>necessary
>> evil.
>
>Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?

I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You call it
"anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state capitalism"
and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
"capitalist"?


>> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> >> self-contradiction.
>> >
>> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
>>
>>
>> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>
>How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
>you call it.


No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on *title*.
Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of one's
property. Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.


>>which
>> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
>
>Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it does
>not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
>controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
>needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
>second premise, take your choice.

The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't live
on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for doing so.
If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for what
you don't use? Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own the
building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that if
there's no state or other authority to compel them to?


>> Anarchy is by
>> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>authorities
>> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
>shoud
>> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>
>It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
>would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.


But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim to
your property is pure smoke. Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from you,
who's to stop them? Why should anyone stop them?

chris.holt

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 2:33:20 PM7/10/02
to
Bill Christensen wrote:
> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...

>>In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme

>>>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all


>>>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>>>than others.

>>Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?

> It is.

You might want to recheck your statistics; there are a lot of
countries (and people within countries, which is just as important)
that are worse off than 20 years ago by just about any measure.
There are a variety of reasons, rich countries subsidizing agriculture
being a major one.

>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.

> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?

How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?


--


chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt

Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 3:07:44 PM7/10/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:h1_W8.27781$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Now are you going to arbitrarily determine who is harmed? Your version of
anarchism sure has a lot of arbitrary authority.

> Right "libertarians"
> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system
that
> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."

If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to do
anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
wish.

[Snip]

> >> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
> >> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some
more
> >> >> >than others.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
> >> >
> >> >It is.
> >>
> >>
> >> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting
even
> >one?
>
>
> Well?

Here's an example of India's growth
http://www.indiaonestop.com/gnp.htm

Different thread where you made the same claim, about two weeks ago.


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=christensen+xofpi&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=
3d15eee6%241_2%40nopics.sjc&rnum=1

> >>, but there is a
> >> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
> >*immoral*
> >> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
> >kind in
> >> real anarchy).
> >
> >And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
> >definitions.

> The difference between possession and private property, in real anarchism,
is
> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what a
person
> uses, a person possesses.

So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free for the
taking while I am not driving it?

>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them.
Thus,
> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.

So all "unused" things are up for grabs?

> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
> >necessary
> >> evil.
> >
> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?

> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
call it
> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
capitalism"
> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
> "capitalist"?

If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I believe
in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.

> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> >> >> self-contradiction.
> >> >
> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
another?
> >>
> >>
> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
> >
> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
> >you call it.
>
>
> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
*title*.
> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
one's
> property.

Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of production.

>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.

Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property that
they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument rather
than simply asserting.

> >>which
> >> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
> >
> >Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it
does
> >not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
> >controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
> >needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
> >second premise, take your choice.
>
>
>
> The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't
live
> on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for
doing so.
> If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for
what
> you don't use?

Because they recognize my ownership of it and I will not let them use it if
they don't.

>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
the
> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that
if
> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?

Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.

> >> Anarchy is by
> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
> >authorities
> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
> >shoud
> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
> >
> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>
>
> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim
to
> your property is pure smoke.

No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help. Since
most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.

>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
you,
> who's to stop them?

Me, my neighbors, etc.

>Why should anyone stop them?

In order to keep their property also. I recognize theirs, they recognize
mine. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. If someone was stealing your
neighbor's bike, would you do anything to stop it?


xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 4:45:46 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2c8...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...


Right "libertarianism" values freedom to associate as one wishes without
compulsion to associate with anyone one doesn't want to associate with, right?
So does it result in harm to liberty, on this view, if an "anarcho"-capitalist
is compelled to serve in the military during wartime? After all, it's not really
*his* war he's being compelled to fight, is it? This unfree association could
even get him killed. On the other hand, he gets room and board, and if he isn't
killed, he may even get a college education, free health care and a housing loan
when the Big One is done.

This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss relationship.
The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and living
very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is going to
profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is exploiting
your *compulsion* to sell your labor.

This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't get
it. Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural" state of
affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been around
for a few hundred years.


>> Right "libertarians"
>> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system
>that
>> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
>> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
>
>If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to do
>anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
>wish.

If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for self-sufficiency or
self-employment, *you* might have a point.


>[Snip]
>
>> >> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some
>more
>> >> >> >than others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>> >> >
>> >> >It is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting
>even
>> >one?
>>
>>
>> Well?
>
>Here's an example of India's growth
>http://www.indiaonestop.com/gnp.htm

http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html


That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy, and
whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
literal-minded as you are?!


>>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them.
>Thus,
>> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>
>So all "unused" things are up for grabs?


Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start using
and possessing?


>> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>> >necessary
>> >> evil.
>> >
>> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
>
>> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
>call it
>> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
>capitalism"
>> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
>> "capitalist"?
>
>If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I believe
>in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.


So what is the boss if not a ruler?


>> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> >> >> self-contradiction.
>> >> >
>> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
>another?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>> >
>> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
>> >you call it.
>>
>>
>> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
>*title*.
>> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
>one's
>> property.
>
>Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of production.


So you would do away with interest and rents?


>>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
>
>Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property that
>they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument rather
>than simply asserting.


So you would do away with interest and rents?


>> >>which
>> >> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
>> >
>> >Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it
>does
>> >not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
>> >controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
>> >needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
>> >second premise, take your choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't
>live
>> on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for
>doing so.
>> If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for
>what
>> you don't use?
>
>Because they recognize my ownership of it and I will not let them use it if
>they don't.


I don't see why they should recognize your property. They could easily outforce
you, kill you and keep the property for themselves. Maybe they'll even hire some
Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.


>>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
>> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
>the
>> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that
>if
>> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
>
>Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.


They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh on top
of its ashes.

>> >> Anarchy is by
>> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>> >authorities
>> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
>> >shoud
>> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>> >
>> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
>> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>>
>>
>> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim
>to
>> your property is pure smoke.
>
>No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help. Since
>most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.


What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you don't
pay taxes on it?


>>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
>> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
>you,
>> who's to stop them?
>
>Me, my neighbors, etc.


Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
property for themselves.


>>Why should anyone stop them?
>
>In order to keep their property also. I recognize theirs, they recognize
>mine. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. If someone was stealing your
>neighbor's bike, would you do anything to stop it?


If you live in close quarters with a postage stamp-sized lawn, I don't think
your property, or possession, as it were, is in danger of being ripped out of
your hands. Unless you owe a lot of back taxes and/or mortgage on it.


xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 5:14:08 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3D2C7DF0...@ncl.ac.uk>, chris.holt says...

>
>Bill Christensen wrote:
>> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...
>>>In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
>
>>>>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>>>>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>>>>than others.
>
>>>Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>
>> It is.
>
>You might want to recheck your statistics; there are a lot of
>countries (and people within countries, which is just as important)
>that are worse off than 20 years ago by just about any measure.
>There are a variety of reasons, rich countries subsidizing agriculture
>being a major one.


That's one of the points the WTO itself makes in this unusually, scathingly
self-critical paper on the failure of liberalization policies in the Third
World:

http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html

Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 9:58:34 PM7/10/02
to

"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D2C7DF0...@ncl.ac.uk...

The same way it is done today, they fight it out. Today it is done many
times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be done
through arbitration. But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
morals precede government.


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 10:21:25 PM7/10/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:_11X8.27816$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Most definitely.

> After all, it's not really
> *his* war he's being compelled to fight, is it? This unfree association
could
> even get him killed. On the other hand, he gets room and board, and if he
isn't
> killed, he may even get a college education, free health care and a
housing loan
> when the Big One is done.

You're right, compulsory military service is evil.

> This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss
relationship.
> The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and
living
> very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is
going to
> profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is
exploiting
> your *compulsion* to sell your labor.

You are not compelled to sell your labors to someone else, you can be self
employed or self sufficient. People do it every day.

> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
get
> it.

Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
done it twice in my life so far.

>Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
> that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural"
state of
> affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been
around
> for a few hundred years.

What, did manna fall from heaven? Or are you talking about not working for
others, in other words being self sufficient? That is still an option.

> >> Right "libertarians"
> >> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a
system
> >that
> >> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
> >> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
> >
> >If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to
do
> >anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
> >wish.
>
>
>
> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
self-sufficiency or
> self-employment, *you* might have a point.

They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.

They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property rights
in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?

> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
them.
> >Thus,
> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
> >
> >So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
>
>
>
>
> Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start
using
> and possessing?

I wouldn't because I understand and respect property. You are the one
claiming that government is needed to secure property.

> >> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
> >> >necessary
> >> >> evil.
> >> >
> >> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
> >
> >> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
> >call it
> >> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
> >capitalism"
> >> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
> >> "capitalist"?
> >
> >If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I
believe
> >in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
>
>
> So what is the boss if not a ruler?

He is only the ruler over his possessions just as I would presumably be the
ruler over my house in your form of anarchy. He is not the ruler over others
as those others aren't forced to associate with him.

>
> >> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is
a
> >> >> >> self-contradiction.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
> >another?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
> >> >
> >> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession"
as
> >> >you call it.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
> >*title*.
> >> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
> >one's
> >> property.
> >
> >Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of
production.
>
>
> So you would do away with interest and rents?

No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.

>
> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
> >
> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property
that
> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
rather
> >than simply asserting.
>
>
> So you would do away with interest and rents?

No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.

No they couldn't. My neighbors would help me protect it as I would help them
protect theirs. And if property were that easy to steal, then he would have
to worry about being killed himself for the property.

>Maybe they'll even hire some
> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
>

> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
> >the
> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize
that
> >if
> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
> >
> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
>
>
> They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh
on top
> of its ashes.

And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish it?
People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.

>
> >> >> Anarchy is by
> >> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
> >> >authorities
> >> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> >> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as
they
> >> >shoud
> >> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
> >> >
> >> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those
who
> >> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
> >>
> >>
> >> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your
claim
> >to
> >> your property is pure smoke.
> >
> >No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help.
Since
> >most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
>
>
> What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you
don't
> pay taxes on it?

No, I mean that other people recognize it because it is mine, not because
the government says it is mine.

> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
> >you,
> >> who's to stop them?
> >
> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
>
> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
> property for themselves.

Then theirs is insecure also.

xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 10:46:37 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 10:48:43 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>
>


Government clearly precedes property. Possession, as I have talked about it, has
been around as long as we have been around, and government has been around as
long as humans have had language and communities. But private property is a much
more recent phenomenon.


Billy Beck

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 11:18:59 PM7/10/02
to

"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

>Bill Christensen wrote:

>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?

Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
none of your business.


Billy

VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free

xofpi

unread,
Jul 10, 2002, 11:43:33 PM7/10/02
to
In article <3d2ce...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:_11X8.27816$15....@www.newsranger.com...

But the people who do it are those who have resources to do it. Many people do
not.

>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>get
>> it.
>
>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>done it twice in my life so far.


This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no resources,
who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not interested in
forming their own business.

Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire. You
can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.

It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your eyes.
I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you compensate
for it.


>>Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
>> that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural"
>state of
>> affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been
>around
>> for a few hundred years.
>
>What, did manna fall from heaven? Or are you talking about not working for
>others, in other words being self sufficient? That is still an option.


Let's compare working for shelter in this society and in a "primitive" society.
In this society, most likely you buy (which really means finance, for most
people) or rent shelter that already exists. All the labor to construct it has
been done; you just move into your home. While you may tinker with improvements
or alterations to your shelter, you don't have to labor to actually produce it.
But very, very few people own their shelter outright. Most of us have to make
monthly payments, either to a landlord or a bank, in order to remain living
where we live. Most of us do not have deep pockets that allow us to make these
payments on demand with no labor at all; we *have* to sell something we own or
produce--for the vast majority, what we sell is our labor--in order to afford
just the space we live in. Most of us work at least 37 hours a week, many work
as much as twice that much.

In primitive societies, you labor a few hours to produce the home and it is
yours. Case closed.

>> >> Right "libertarians"
>> >> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a
>system
>> >that
>> >> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
>> >> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
>> >
>> >If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to
>do
>> >anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
>> >wish.
>>
>>
>>
>> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
>self-sufficiency or
>> self-employment, *you* might have a point.
>
>They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
>sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
>have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.


Don't be like that jackass whose name I can't remember who thought all my
efforts were to mask misplaced whining about my lot. I'm relatively comfortable
and mostly happy with my life as it is. This has been a very good year for me in
a lot of ways. So this train of thought represented by this thread is not about
me, and it's not about you, and it's not about that jackass whose name I forget
(Matt something, I think). It's about the (ill)logic and (super)nature of your
system.

<snip>


>> >> The difference between possession and private property, in real
>anarchism,
>> >is
>> >> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what
>a
>> >person
>> >> uses, a person possesses.
>> >
>> >So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free for
>the
>> >taking while I am not driving it?
>>
>>
>> That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy, and
>> whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
>> literal-minded as you are?!
>
>They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property rights
>in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?


In real anarchy there are no property rights.

>> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
>them.
>> >Thus,
>> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>> >
>> >So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start
>using
>> and possessing?
>
>I wouldn't because I understand and respect property. You are the one
>claiming that government is needed to secure property.


In real anarchy, there would be no property rights.

>> >> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>> >> >necessary
>> >> >> evil.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
>> >
>> >> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
>> >call it
>> >> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
>> >capitalism"
>> >> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
>> >> "capitalist"?
>> >
>> >If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I
>believe
>> >in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
>>
>>
>> So what is the boss if not a ruler?
>
>He is only the ruler over his possessions just as I would presumably be the
>ruler over my house in your form of anarchy. He is not the ruler over others
>as those others aren't forced to associate with him.


Is he or is he not *the law* on his property or in his business, once the
contract is signed, in your system of proprietarianism? Does a worker who
refuses to do something that he claims is not in the contract have any rights
other than to leave the job, even if it's a tight job market and he will most
likely be out of work for some time if he does so? From what I understand, in
proprietarianism, it's the workers tough luck--but of course none of you can
bear to paint the picture so darkly.

>>
>> >> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is
>a
>> >> >> >> self-contradiction.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
>> >another?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>> >> >
>> >> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession"
>as
>> >> >you call it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
>> >*title*.
>> >> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
>> >one's
>> >> property.
>> >
>> >Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of
>production.
>>
>>
>> So you would do away with interest and rents?
>
>No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
>of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.


And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and rents, as
long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that others
may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible hand's
law of the land?


>
>>
>> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
>> >
>> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property
>that
>> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
>rather
>> >than simply asserting.
>>
>>
>> So you would do away with interest and rents?
>
>No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
>of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.


And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and rents, as
long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that others
may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible hand's
law of the land?


We're not talking about a he; we're talking about a syndicate that looks at your
neighborhood and sees gold, a syndicate that has not had any success in getting
you and your neighbors to sell to them. A syndicate that has a professional
defense force, some biological weapons, and no fear of government or a pitchfork
brigade to get what it feels it must have.

>>Maybe they'll even hire some
>> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
>>
>
>> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
>> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
>> >the
>> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize
>that
>> >if
>> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
>> >
>> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
>>
>>
>> They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh
>on top
>> of its ashes.
>
>And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish it?
>People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.

This is a syndicate with a professional defense force.


>>
>> >> >> Anarchy is by
>> >> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>> >> >authorities
>> >> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> >> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as
>they
>> >> >shoud
>> >> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those
>who
>> >> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your
>claim
>> >to
>> >> your property is pure smoke.
>> >
>> >No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help.
>Since
>> >most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you
>don't
>> pay taxes on it?
>
>No, I mean that other people recognize it because it is mine, not because
>the government says it is mine.


Easy for you to say in a system that relies on the government's word over who
owns what. If your neighbor claims a favorite tree on the border of your
properties is his, how do you resolve the issue? What if he will not take no for
an answer?

>> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
>> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
>> >you,
>> >> who's to stop them?
>> >
>> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
>>
>> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
>> property for themselves.
>
>Then theirs is insecure also.


You better hope they agree with you!

xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 12:03:17 AM7/11/02
to
In article <21upiucb757jrs01a...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...

Assume he does, Einstein. (Freakin' question dodger!)

Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 2:10:05 AM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:F97X8.28336$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Sure they do.

>
> >> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians
can't
> >get
> >> it.
> >
> >Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start
your
> >own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
> >done it twice in my life so far.
>
>
> This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
> economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no
resources,
> who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk,

Sure it is. Do you think that all businesses need credit?

>or who is just plain not interested in
> forming their own business.

You are claiming that people are compelled because they prefer it over the
alternative? I'm compelled to eat steak because I don't want to eat chicken.

> Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work
for
> you?

Not yet.

>If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
> Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
> consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to
hire.

Sure it does, everyone can be self employed. Some of these self employed
people might even choose to contract out to others.

>You
> can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change
the fact
> that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were
just
> dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you
don't
> work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't
clothe
> yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.

And they don't like the risk of being self employed or self sufficient. They
are insuring themselves against that risk by working for someone else who
can give them a steady income.

> It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you
all
> have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your
own
> rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
> struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your
eyes.
> I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you
compensate
> for it.
>

I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to work for
others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for others,
thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for others unless
you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work for
others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not being
allowed to make them.

A few hours? You can live in a shack today if you want, that you chose a
home that you can't afford is your own problem.

I'm using you for example purposes only.

> <snip>
>
>
> >> >> The difference between possession and private property, in real
> >anarchism,
> >> >is
> >> >> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that
what
> >a
> >> >person
> >> >> uses, a person possesses.
> >> >
> >> >So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free
for
> >the
> >> >taking while I am not driving it?
> >>
> >>
> >> That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy,
and
> >> whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
> >> literal-minded as you are?!
> >
> >They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property
rights
> >in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?
>
>
> In real anarchy there are no property rights.

Property rights are inherent to humans.

But I'll play along, let me rephrase:

They should be. If you think that people won't respect your possession of an
apartment building, then why would they respect your possession of your
house?

No, the worker is free to leave.

> Does a worker who
> refuses to do something that he claims is not in the contract have any
rights
> other than to leave the job,

There, you just admitted that he can leave. Therefore it is a position of
mutual consent, no ruler.

>even if it's a tight job market and he will most
> likely be out of work for some time if he does so? From what I understand,
in
> proprietarianism, it's the workers tough luck--but of course none of you
can
> bear to paint the picture so darkly.

Of course it is his tough luck, just as it is the employers tough luck if
the job goes unfilled. If someone wants to end his portion of an exchange,
the other party is not required to perform their portion.

It's none of my business.

> even if it means that others
> may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible
hand's
> law of the land?

They may follow suit, but that just leaves the door open for competition.

> >>
> >> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
> >> >
> >> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the
property
> >that
> >> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
> >rather
> >> >than simply asserting.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you would do away with interest and rents?
> >
> >No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the
use
> >of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
>
>
> And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and
rents, as
> long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that
others
> may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible
hand's
> law of the land?

Ditto above

Then I am SOL, aren't I? No difference with a government or not.

>
> >>Maybe they'll even hire some
> >> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
> >>
> >
> >> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> >> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you
own
> >> >the
> >> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they
recognize
> >that
> >> >if
> >> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
> >> >
> >> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> They might be willing to level your place and just build something
fresh
> >on top
> >> of its ashes.
> >
> >And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish
it?
> >People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.
>
>
>
> This is a syndicate with a professional defense force.

And again, you have thugs that steal property with government also.

It depends on what he wants to do with the tree. Matters such as this could
end up in a fight just as they do today with government. Many times it is
settled with a court battle to avoid bloodshed, so I would expect that in
anarchy we would go to an arbitrator to avoid bloodshed.

>
> >> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> >> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it
from
> >> >you,
> >> >> who's to stop them?
> >> >
> >> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
> >>
> >> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want
your
> >> property for themselves.
> >
> >Then theirs is insecure also.
>
>
> You better hope they agree with you!

If you steal my stuff, why wouldn't I steal yours?


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 2:27:42 AM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
[Snip]

> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
> >morals precede government.

> Government clearly precedes property.

Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
property given to us by our creator.

"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
Property." - Locke

Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists government.
I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property to
mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.


Steven Canyon

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 7:35:44 AM7/11/02
to


Answer: You work it out. If you need to know more, try and take
something of mine.....

....or hurt someone I care about.

--Ace

Steven Canyon

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 7:35:39 AM7/11/02
to

Bullshit. Anybody can do it if they are industrious enough. You
lefties are just to lazy and fearful of failure.

>
>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>>get
>>> it.
>>
>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>done it twice in my life so far.
>
>
>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no resources,
>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not interested in
>forming their own business.

Many people came here from viet nam after the war with zero resources
and built successful business in a very short time.

>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
>you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.

<chuckle> Any old argument you can come up with huh? If there was a
shortage of laborers the demand for laborers would go up and the pay
would then go up and voila........

>You
>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>
>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your eyes.
>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you compensate
>for it.
>

It's amazing how lefties will scratch and dig in the dirt for any
argument to support their need for a communalistic society that
doesn't require them to take the risks that they so fear....

I wonder how many grown lefties still live with their mommas...


--Ace

xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 10:49:19 AM7/11/02
to
In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>[Snip]
>
>> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
>> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
>> >morals precede government.
>
>> Government clearly precedes property.
>
>Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
>property given to us by our creator.


Prove it.


>"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
>putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
>Property." - Locke
>
>Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists government.
>I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property to
>mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.

And what precisely is that?


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 11:16:12 AM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >
> >
> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> >> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property
and
> >> >morals precede government.
> >
> >> Government clearly precedes property.
> >
> >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
> >property given to us by our creator.
>
>
> Prove it.
>

It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
from a lion.

>
> >"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
> >putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
> >Property." - Locke
> >
> >Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists
government.
> >I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property
to
> >mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
>
>
>
> And what precisely is that?

An owned item. What you call "recognized possession"


xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 12:19:34 PM7/11/02
to
In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:F97X8.28336$15....@www.newsranger.com...


I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not as free in
capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was reading
Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would probably
never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read it?
Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I don't
know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies him
from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So last
night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:

"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."

Why does this basic inequality of **freedom** escape right "libertarians?


Brian T. Wolf

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 12:39:55 PM7/11/02
to
"Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:3d2da11e$1...@nopics.sjc...

>
> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > >[Snip]

> > >


> > >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
> > >property given to us by our creator.
> >
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
>
> It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
> from a lion.
>

I am interested in both sides of this discussion; although it is getting a
bit tedious to read - not your fault, just the nature of the net.
Anyway I just wanted to chime in on this point: Just because someone (or
something) is willing to fight for what they have does not prove that they
have an "inherent right" to that property. Are you saying "might makes
right"?
If I kill the lion I get her steak, but if she kills me she gets it back.
Obviously that is true, but is it relevant?

-Brian


xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 12:50:07 PM7/11/02
to
In article <3d2da11e$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >[Snip]
>> >
>> >> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
>> >> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property
>and
>> >> >morals precede government.
>> >
>> >> Government clearly precedes property.
>> >
>> >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
>> >property given to us by our creator.
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
>It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
>from a lion.

It's interesting that you pick the lion as an example. In lion society, it's the
lioness who almost always captures the meat. But she gives up the *lion's share*
before she consumes what's left over. If anything *is* left over.

If you think this information is a nonsequitur, imagine how I felt when I read
yours!

>> >"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
>> >putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
>> >Property." - Locke
>> >
>> >Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists
>government.
>> >I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property
>to
>> >mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
>>
>>
>>
>> And what precisely is that?
>
>An owned item. What you call "recognized possession"

So the air you breathe is your property while its in your lungs? Or by "owned"
are you referring to something you have title to?


xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:32:37 PM7/11/02
to
In article <63griuorbpaosvqhi...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...

>
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <21upiucb757jrs01a...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>
>>>"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>>>
>>>>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>>>
>>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>>>
>>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>>>none of your business.
>
>>Assume he does, Einstein.
>
> Why should I? It's none of *my* business.
>
> If you have that kind of a problem, then you go solve it. Don't
>try to bill me for it.

Dodge and dodge again.

Assume it's your problem. How do you deal with it?

chris.holt

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:14:36 PM7/11/02
to
Bill Christensen wrote:
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote ...

>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...

>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.

>>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
>>
> having
>
>>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?

>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?

> The same way it is done today, they fight it out.

That's effectively an abdication of moral principle, and gives
you no comeback if anyone more powerful than you takes whatever
they want of yours. It effectively legitimizes rape (in answer
to your question).

> Today it is done many
> times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be done
> through arbitration.

Why would you expect that? Courts depend on a commonly
recognized system of property, enforced by an empowered
government. In densely populated areas (as opposed to
Iceland) it is relatively easy to cheat anonymously, and
many people do so. Keeping that number to a manageable
level is difficult at the best of times.

> But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> commonly recognized system of property and moral principles?

Because right now, there are many disagreements about systems
of property and moral principles; and even with the current
supposed consensus, people are willing to fight and kill over
these disagreements.

> Property and morals precede government.

For some value of 'precede' that also says chickens
precede eggs. I'm not saying that any of these are
necessary or sufficient for any other; I'm just saying
that viewing these things in terms of a logical
hierarchy where there is a notion of precedence doesn't
actually help you understand any of them.


--


chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt

Billy Beck

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:29:35 PM7/11/02
to

xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <21upiucb757jrs01a...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...

>>"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>
>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>>
>>>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>>
>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>>
>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>>none of your business.

>Assume he does, Einstein.

Why should I? It's none of *my* business.

If you have that kind of a problem, then you go solve it. Don't
try to bill me for it.

chris.holt

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:24:36 PM7/11/02
to

On the one hand, suppose I think I have a direct interest, but
others disagree (consider the old situation of a wife who wanted
her husband to spend some of his wages on food for her and her
children, as opposed to blowing it all on drink and gambling).
On the other hand, you're effectively dismissing the case for
third party intervention, e.g. stopping an act of aggression
that happens to be going on as you walk down the street.


--


chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt

xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:52:35 PM7/11/02
to
In article <8bgriugjlibpivbkk...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...

>
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
>
> Well, that's what you "think", and...

>
>>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...
>
> ...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
>might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
>let your ignorance get in your doddering way.


The quote you snipped was from actual capitalist economics:

"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."

>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free


Billy Beck

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 1:36:45 PM7/11/02
to

xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.

Well, that's what you "think", and...

>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.


>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...

...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
let your ignorance get in your doddering way.

xofpi

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 4:11:14 PM7/11/02
to
In article <sodn0sy...@shell01.TheWorld.com>, ah...@no-spam-world.std.com
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...

>
> >> I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to work for
> >> others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for others,
> >> thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for others unless
> >> you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
> >> employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work for
> >> others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not being
> >> allowed to make them.
>
> xofpi> I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
> xofpi> a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not as free in
>
>I do not think so. It depends on supply and demand. Not so long
>ago, a good programmer had a huge "advantage" over employers. Now
>that is not so.


But usually, for most laborers or employees, the employer usually has more
freedom, no? As a rule.

> xofpi> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was reading
> xofpi> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would probably
> xofpi> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read it?
> xofpi> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I don't
> xofpi> know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies him
> xofpi> from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So last
> xofpi> night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:
>
>
>--
>Andrew Hall
>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 5:03:35 PM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:3HiX8.28404$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Let me try again: property is an item that you control and defend. Title
just means that your ownership is recognized by others.


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 5:13:55 PM7/11/02
to

"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D2DBCFC...@ncl.ac.uk...

> Bill Christensen wrote:
> > "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote ...
> >>Bill Christensen wrote:
> >>>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...
>
> >>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
> >>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over
their
> >>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
> >>
> > having
> >
> >>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
> >>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
> >>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>
> > The same way it is done today, they fight it out.
>
> That's effectively an abdication of moral principle, and gives
> you no comeback if anyone more powerful than you takes whatever
> they want of yours. It effectively legitimizes rape (in answer
> to your question).

Not really, I asked why you thought that there wouldn't be a recognized
system of property and moral principles. I believe that there would be one.

> > Today it is done many
> > times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be
done
> > through arbitration.
>
> Why would you expect that? Courts depend on a commonly
> recognized system of property, enforced by an empowered
> government. In densely populated areas (as opposed to
> Iceland) it is relatively easy to cheat anonymously, and
> many people do so. Keeping that number to a manageable
> level is difficult at the best of times.
>
> > But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> > commonly recognized system of property and moral principles?
>
> Because right now, there are many disagreements about systems
> of property and moral principles; and even with the current
> supposed consensus, people are willing to fight and kill over
> these disagreements.

Where are there disagreements about systems of property and moral
principles? I think that if you took two people and plunked them down in an
uninhabited place, they would recognize property virtually the same as we
do, and would have virtually the same morals, at least as they relate to
inalienable rights.

> > Property and morals precede government.
>
> For some value of 'precede' that also says chickens
> precede eggs.

Off topic but, eggs obviously precede chickens, eggs existed before any
birds did. The first chicken came from an egg that was laid by a biological
ancestor of the chicken.

>I'm not saying that any of these are
> necessary or sufficient for any other; I'm just saying
> that viewing these things in terms of a logical
> hierarchy where there is a notion of precedence doesn't
> actually help you understand any of them.

Sure, but when one defines property as needing a controlling legal
authority, ie government; and the other believes that governments were
instituted to protect property, we obviously have differing definitions of
the word property.


Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 4:49:51 PM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:qeiX8.28398$15....@www.newsranger.com...

Accepted by socialists.

>People are not as free in
> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was
reading
> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would
probably
> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read
it?

No.

> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I
don't
> know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies
him
> from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So
last
> night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:
>
> "Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and
scarce
> any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as
necessary
> to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so
immediate."

How have we subsisted for millions of years before the industrial revolution
then?

Bill Christensen

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 5:00:44 PM7/11/02
to

"Brian T. Wolf" <noe...@nodomain.com> wrote in message
news:3d2db...@nopics.sjc...

> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3d2da11e$1...@nopics.sjc...
> >
> > "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > > In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > > >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > > >[Snip]
>
> > > >
> > > >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right
to
> > > >property given to us by our creator.
> > >
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> > >
> >
> > It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
> > from a lion.
> >
> I am interested in both sides of this discussion; although it is getting a
> bit tedious to read - not your fault, just the nature of the net.
> Anyway I just wanted to chime in on this point: Just because someone (or
> something) is willing to fight for what they have does not prove that they
> have an "inherent right" to that property.

I am not saying that they have an inherent right to *that* property, I am
saying that they have an inherent right to property. We don't have the right
to own any particular item, we do have the right to own. My belief is that
the right to property is inherent in us, we are born with it; and as an
example I show that animals understand property, they use and defend it.
Many animals will respect other's property rights, a large dog will leave
the property of a smaller dog for example.

Are you saying "might makes
> right"?

No, but doesn't it really come down to that in the end? When people go to
court to settle a dispute, aren't they merely trying to get the might of the
government to take their side in the case?

> If I kill the lion I get her steak, but if she kills me she gets it back.
> Obviously that is true, but is it relevant?

Usually property fights in the animal kingdom do not come down to killing,
they fight until one gives up its claim. That is what happens with humans
also, but we usually fight it out in court.


Billy Beck

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 7:21:59 PM7/11/02
to

"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

>Billy Beck wrote:

>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>
>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
>>>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>
>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>> none of your business.
>
>On the one hand, suppose I think I have a direct interest, but
>others disagree (consider the old situation of a wife who wanted
>her husband to spend some of his wages on food for her and her
>children, as opposed to blowing it all on drink and gambling).
>On the other hand, you're effectively dismissing the case for
>third party intervention, e.g. stopping an act of aggression
>that happens to be going on as you walk down the street.

Try to understand the essence of my position here, Chris: I
reserve the right to make up *my own mind* about any given case of
dispute. Now, you might not find that completely satisfying, it might
not light you up with a nice glowy feeling of social solidarity, but
it's a natural fact of human existence: values (the things for whcih
they act) are individually personal things, and some people think for
themselves in order to judge values. That's just the way it is. It's
a fact of reality. It has lots of implications, and they generally
run out from the context of any given situation. You've posed two
situations, above. Fine: have at 'em, if you want to, and knock
yourself out. You are not competent, however, to go around enforcing
*other* peoples' participation in the project, nor is anyone at work
in resolving their dispute obliged to explain it to *you*.

The issue here is about the right of reservation. "I don't want
to get involved." That's what freedom is all about: the right to
decide for oneself. And you might think someone else's decision is
unwise in any given circumstance, but that's about all you can say
about it.

Dana

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 10:06:26 PM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:qeiX8.28398$15....@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >
> >
> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:F97X8.28336$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>
> >>You
> >> can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change
> >the fact
> >> that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were
> >just
> >> dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you
> >don't
> >> work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't
> >clothe
> >> yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.

Well their labor is their property, so when they work they have property
which is needed for all the above that you cite.

No not at all.

>People are not as free in
> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.

They sure are.

> Last night I was reading
> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would
probably
> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read
it?
> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis,

Ah yes, good old marx, lets kill off the middle class and the rich.
Anything written by Marx is suspect.


Dana

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 10:07:18 PM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:DBjX8.28416$15....@www.newsranger.com...


Sounds just like marxist propaganda.

Dana

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 10:08:25 PM7/11/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:CDlX8.28446$15....@www.newsranger.com...

No.

Dana

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 10:08:03 PM7/11/02
to

<ah...@no-spam-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodn0sy...@shell01.TheWorld.com...

> >>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>
> >> I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to
work for
> >> others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for
others,
> >> thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for
others unless
> >> you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
> >> employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work
for
> >> others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not
being
> >> allowed to make them.
>
> xofpi> I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis
that labor is at
> xofpi> a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not
as free in
>
> I do not think so. It depends on supply and demand. Not so long
> ago, a good programmer had a huge "advantage" over employers. Now
> that is not so.

Depends on what you can program.

robert parker

unread,
Jul 11, 2002, 9:32:12 PM7/11/02